Latest news from Sony (100% official)

[redsquadron]

,,BattleShip originaly came with an instruction book.

You could read that.
(it wont help that Liam Neason was only in the movie for 3 seconds though)

Rather sad too... He's obvioulsy just happy to be working since losing his wife, but putting virtually his entire role in the trailer is a bit misleading for the studio to do.

[Eternian-King Paul]

As misleading as other Hasboro movies.

[Night Stalker]

If the rumours that GI JOE Retaliation has been bumped to next year for 'retooling' because it's an absolute stinker are ture, toy movies may suddenly become the black sheep of Hollywood.

It's official: It's being held over for damn near a year for "3D" reconstruction. The truth is that Paramount is on the verge of bankruptcy and word is that the movie is so horrible that it just may send them over the edge.

I don't understand how a GI Joe sequel was even greenlit after the horrible reception and boxoffice returns of the first one, but I guess I'm not in the same league of movie mogul genius who expects things like Battleship and The Dictator to rake in billions of dollars.

[Eternian-King Paul]

You see hollywood really just needs to make the best movies ever made, then they can quit.

Eventually all internet and media will have a needful reason for existance.
..(like free education or government organization)

Aannyy ddaayy nnooww....

[Krueger]

It's official: It's being held over for damn near a year for "3D" reconstruction. The truth is that Paramount is on the verge of bankruptcy and word is that the movie is so horrible that it just may send them over the edge.

I don't understand how a GI Joe sequel was even greenlit after the horrible reception and boxoffice returns of the first one, but I guess I'm not in the same league of movie mogul genius who expects things like Battleship and The Dictator to rake in billions of dollars.

Is this post serious? Because I have two problems with it: "horrible" box-office returns (they were underwhelming for the budget, but far from "horrible"), and my second problem: Paramount on the verge of bankruptcy. Who knew? No one else apparently, not even Paramount. I don't know where you got that from. I really don't. That is an absurd claim. Or is the joke on me?

[Night Stalker]

Is this post serious? Because I have two problems with it: "horrible" box-office returns (they were underwhelming for the budget, but far from "horrible"), and my second problem: Paramount on the verge of bankruptcy. Who knew? No one else apparently, not even Paramount. I don't know where you got that from. I really don't. That is an absurd claim. Or is the joke on me?

Oh my God, can you be any more dramatic?

Paramount's in serious financial trouble. They have been since Dreamworks split off. This is not new news to anyone but you, apparently.

GI Joe: Rise of Cobra took two years to break even, which anyone even remotely connected with the motion picture business could tell you is horrible. Not "underwhelming", but a flat out bomb.

So yeah, I guess the joke is on you.

[wundarwarrior]

I'm pretty sure that G.I. Joe was a financial success regardless of critical opinion. It was a mess of a film but $300 million plus at the box office and having sold almost 4 million dvd/blu ray units in its first 3 weeks of home release equates to plenty of money to cover $175 million in budget money plus the marketing. On top of that all the merchandise sold is another revenue stream made by the film being released. Every review I had read of advanced screenings had been very positive for the sequel. Having reduced the budget to $125million and adding the Rock, yes that seems to matter, Retaliation will make plenty of money as well. However, their pushing it back for 3D was beyond dumb. They now basically doubled the marketing expense to add a few dollars to SOME of the tickets sold. People will go see this movie regardless of critics and what they say. Rise of Cobra was the stuff but people still saw it and it didn't bomb. Spider-Man will be the same way. Sony will profit from it and the world will keep spinning. The movie industry always is one with a doom and gloom aura about it, yet it still pumps out films. The way the studios and production companies function is always changing in terms of contracts and what not, and as MGM is proof, they generally workout to extend their lifespan.

Now to my whole point. The MOTU movie has the benefit of Game of Thrones proving some people will watch swords and sorcery. It is really giving other evidence beyond what LOTR did years ago, but Sony shouldn't drag their feet. With the Hobbit coming I think it's now or never for this movie. Peter Jackson will bring that genre to the forefront again so He-Man should follow suit. And hopefully the execs do not try and correlate the junk that was Conan, with MOTU. Financially though, I think the budget needs to stay south of $150 million, way south actually. Robert Rodriquez has proved fantastic movies can be made visually appealing and financially successful for much less money than a movie like Battleship. Sin City was a huge success and it had a much smaller fan base than MOTU has. It proved good movies will draw good crowds. Just my thoughts.

[Donimo]

WundarWarrior is right:

During its theatrical run only (not including subsequent digital or dvd/BD sales and rentals), GI Joe: The Rise of the Cobra made $302 million worldwide on a production budget of $175 million.

And I also agree with his thoughts on the MOTU movie following suit after The Hobbit and Game of Thrones. They need to get in gear and start production on the movie so it can hopefully ride the wave.

[redsquadron]

GI Joe: Rise of Cobra[/I] took two years to break even, which anyone even remotely connected with the motion picture business could tell you is horrible. Not "underwhelming", but a flat out bomb.

So yeah, I guess the joke is on you.

I don't think "flat out bombs" get sequals. RoC made $300,000,000 worldwide within a couple of months, before any DVD/Blu-Ray sales were even made.

[Night Stalker]

I don't think "flat out bombs" get sequals. RoC made $300,000,000 worldwide within a couple of months, before any DVD/Blu-Ray sales were even made.

No, RoC grossed $300 million worldwide, it netted less than half of that. The sequel was greenlit during its fairly decent opening weekend under the impression that the numbers would stay even for at least a couple of weeks, unfortunately those figures nosedived and crashed (hence the term "bomb"). Paramount figured they would make more on the DVD sales (unfortunately, they didn't) and it wasn't until 2011 before they finally broke even.

By this time, the sequel had been in preproduction for a while and Paramount had two choices: halt production and lose millions of dollars, or nurture the project closely in hopes that it would outperform its predecessor. They've been ultra-cautious about the Joe sequel for quite some time, hence pulling the sequel for "retooling" for another year just another unsurprising effort to keep this thing from losing even more money.

Hollywood films aren't a simple gross-budget=profit formula. RoC was a giant, exploding, stinking bomb. Paramount can't afford another one, at least not right now.

[redsquadron]

I still don't buy that RoC had a $150,000,000 budget for advertising as many suggest, or that it was cheaper for Paramount to spend another $150,000,000 than abandon preproduction on a sequel.

Whatever, RoC found an audience and a lot of people went to see it. And, personally, I liked it. Whatever it's relative merits as a Joe movie, I enjoyed it as an unpretentious action film that did at least manage to invest it's characters with personality, had a linear, logical plot that wouldnt have been out of place in the Marvel comic and actually told a story (compared to the fragmented, badly scripted, toilet humour-riddled Transformers films which of course made billions...)

But now I'm waaay off topic...

[Night Stalker]

I still don't buy that RoC had a $150,000,000 budget for advertising as many suggest, or that it was cheaper for Paramount to spend another $150,000,000 than abandon preproduction on a sequel.

Above the line distribution costs are usually the same price as the production budget for summer blockbuster-type pictures. You have to pay for advertisement. Theaters get their cut. Actors, producers, directors and Hasbro get their cut from the backend. In this case, Paramount needed to net 370 million dollars to break even. This finally happened in 2011, two years after its release date.

Compare this to say, The Avengers which recouped its total costs within its first week.

As for the Joe sequel, Paramount already had 75 million invested in it by the time RoC hit DVD. I can understand why they decided to go forward with it at that point. If you were a studio head, and you were faced with the decision to jettison 75 million dollars worth of work (not counting the legal fees accrued from breaking contracts with Hasbro, the signed actors, the director and production crew); OR you had the choice to drop another 250 million into it and hope that at worst, you'd at least recoup your money within a couple of years like the first one or at best, it would be another Avengers, then of course I would have thrown more money at it and crossed my fingers.

Paramount's mistake was in greenlighting the sequel so quickly. Strong opening weekend numbers for a hyped-up movie like this aren't uncommon, people want to see what the fuss is about. The second week, and the third week are the most telling projections on what the film will eventually bring home. RoC was a lot like Battleship- everybody went the first week because they've been bombarded with a multi-million dollar advertising campaign, but nobody went the second week because, frankly, the reviews (both professional and word-of-mouth) told the truth: the movie stunk.

Whatever, RoC found an audience and a lot of people went to see it. And, personally, I liked it. Whatever it's relative merits as a Joe movie, I enjoyed it as an unpretentious action film that did at least manage to invest it's characters with personality, had a linear, logical plot that wouldnt have been out of place in the Marvel comic and actually told a story (compared to the fragmented, badly scripted, toilet humour-riddled Transformers films which of course made billions...)

But now I'm waaay off topic...

I agree with you about the Transformers movies. They were pretty lousy in my opinion. I'm honestly surprised that they are as popular as they are, but I also feel the same way about the GI Joe movie. Maybe that's why Paramount thought it was going to do so well (Studio chief: "Hey, it's no worse than Transformers, it's an 80's franchise, the toys are popular, so therefore it should be as big a hit!")

I feel your pain though. I think the recent Conan remake was a billion times better than the Schwartzenneger original. Like RoC, a lot of people went to see it and I personally liked it. It was a straight-ahead action fantasy movie that delivered exactly what it promised. But I guess people went in looking for something else, and for whatever reasons the movie bombed.

And hey, I think as long as we're discussing movies that are comparable to He-Man in some respect (Conan, GI Joe and Transformers all fit that bill) then we're still on topic to some degree.

[Krueger]

GI Joe: Rise of Cobra took two years to break even, which anyone even remotely connected with the motion picture business could tell you is horrible. Not "underwhelming", but a flat out bomb.

A bomb would not be getting a sequel, not by a long shot. Retaliation isn’t cheap; word is that the budget exceeds 125 million. Paramount, or any studio, would never invest in a sequel to a bomb. That is why you won’t be seeing Green Lantern, Battleship or John Carter sequels anytime soon. Underwhelming is the right word, because a “flat-out bomb” would not be getting a direct sequel.

And I wasn’t being dramatic. I think my first post was measured enough. Bankruptcy is completely the wrong word to use. Also, it’s worth noting that Paramount isn’t paying for the entirety of Retaliation by themselves. Hasbro and MGM are paying towards it, too. It would be much more damming for MGM if it turns out to be a big bomb.

No, RoC grossed $300 million worldwide, it netted less than half of that. The sequel was greenlit during its fairly decent opening weekend under the impression that the numbers would stay even for at least a couple of weeks, unfortunately those figures nosedived and crashed (hence the term "bomb").

A studio wouldn't give a green-light so soon. A studio giving the green-light is typically the last thing that happens before a film goes into production. All studios say they're going to make a sequel if the opening weekend is good. It creates hype and interest. WB said exactly that after Green Lantern netted in 53 million in its opening weekend. But talk is cheap and whether or not they do make the sequel depends on one thing: whether its predecessor made enough money to justify it. WB abruptly stopped talking about a potential sequel after it became obviouse that Green Lantern was going to turn out a very expensive bomb. Paramount, though, have gone ahead with a sequel. They wouldn't have done it if they didn't think it was justified.

[Night Stalker]

A "flat-out" bomb would not be getting a sequel, not by a long shot. Retaliation isn’t cheap; word is that the budget exceeds 125 million. Paramount, or any studio, would never invest in a sequel to a bomb, not before at least a decade had past, and even then it will be a reboot rather than a sequel. That is why you won’t be seeing Green Lantern, Battleship or John Carter sequels anytime soon. Underwhelming is the right word, because a “flat-out bomb” would not be getting a direct sequel.

As I pointed out above, the mistake was made under the impression that (A) the film was going to keep making money a'la its opening weekend and then (B) that it was going to be a hit on DVD and Blu-Ray. By this time Paramount had half the production budget spent for the sequel and they basically had no choice but to make a sequel. The reason that GI Joe, as opposed to John Carter, garnered a sequel was because its opening figures were pretty good compared to John Carter, which was expected to bring home $55 million its opening weekend but only brought home half of that.

Green Lantern, however, is a good comparison to Rise of Cobra and is a good example of what Warner Brothers did right compared to what Paramount did wrong. Green Lantern took in a respectable $55 million (just like RoC) its opening weekend against a 200 million production budget (GI Joe's was $150 million). However, WB decided to wait until the worldwide gross for the first month came in whereas Paramount pulled the trigger waaaay too early.

(I find it somewhat strange that you're saying RoC deserved a sequel while Green Lantern doesn't, when they both had nearly the same exact budget and gross. It will be another year and half before Green Lantern begins to break even, even if DVD and BR sales go through the roof. What makes Green Lantern a bomb but RoC a hit? Is it because you're biased towards GI Joe and/or Paramount?)

And I wasn’t being dramatic. I think my first post was measured enough. Bankruptcy is completely the wrong word to use. Also, it’s worth noting that Paramount isn’t paying for the entirety of Retaliation by themselves. Hasbro and MGM are paying towards it, too. It would be much more damming for MGM if it turns out to be a big bomb.

I disagree, your first post came off sounding like you had stepped into a mental asylum because what I was writing was so unfathomable and crazy that it made you question whether someone was playing an elaborate practical joke on you via an internet He-Man forum.

Hasbro is not putting up any line cash; the only money they put up is for production of the toy sales (the net profits of which they also have to share with Paramount and company). True, depending on the negotiated contract, they could stand to lose a lot of money if this movie bombs, but being that they have nothing invested, it's not like they're going to be hurting from it. Battleship, for all the money it lost, didn't effect Hasbro much either way.

MGM's backing is only for distribution channels (cable/satellite and I believe the video game rights). Again, they would lose very little if the movie bombed. Lionsgate, Paramount and MGM formed this triumvirate specifically to avoid having to eat the distribution costs for their separate ventures; the way that the company is formed is structured so that one successful distribution venture could cancel out several unsuccessful dealings.

At the end of the day, it is Paramount who will hurt the most if this fails. While Disney/Viacom may be doing exceptionally well, they've been keeping Paramount afloat by channeling profits from other umbrella ventures into Paramount's coffers just to keep the studio staying afloat. (Paramount's been getting pity money for the Marvel movies, including The Avengers) and their main source of revenue is from the aforementioned MGM/Lionsgate non-theatrical distribution holding. So while Paramount may end up getting $100 million for The Avengers, they're going to have to split it three ways with Lionsgate and MGM.

Look at it this way: you're a parent (Disney/Viacom) and you have an irresponsible child (Paramount) who makes poor financial decisions. You try to give him money by letting him do odd jobs like cut the grass (distribute DVDs) or wash the car (let him make an occasional movie.) But being that your son's sole income is from these odd jobs, you have to pay him way more than the job is worth in order for him to survive. Heck, you have 15 other children that could do the same job much cheaper. On top of that, when you give him $100 million to cut the grass, he has to split it with his drinking buddies (MGM and Lionsgate.)

This is why Paramount goes bankrupt every fifteen years or so.

EDIT: I see you basically reiterated what I said about Green Lantern word-for-word while I was posting this. But you seem to be missing the point: while WB claimed they were going to greenlight a sequel during its opening weekend, somebody had the foresight to say "hell no" while Paramount lacked that intelligence.

[Krueger]

(I find it somewhat strange that you're saying RoC deserved a sequel while Green Lantern doesn't, when they both had nearly the same exact budget and gross. It will be another year and half before Green Lantern begins to break even, even if DVD and BR sales go through the roof. What makes Green Lantern a bomb but RoC a hit? Is it because you're biased towards GI Joe and/or Paramount?)

Green Lantern was budgeted at 200 million dollars. It made $219,851,172 worldwide. On average the studio get's about 55% of the final gross, and I guess that works out the same for DVD sales as well. So WB made about $120,918,145 from it, $79,081,855 less than their budget. ROC was budgeted at 175 million and made $302,469,017 worldwide, of which Paramount got about $166,357,959. ROC made a very healthy $71,170,882 on DVD sales in 2009: http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/GIJOE.php. That's very good for a film that apparently no one liked. Green Lantern was a much bigger bust than GI Joe. I'm getting my figures from here, BTW: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm and http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gijoe.htm

I'm not being biased, BTW. I think Rise of Cobra stinks. I never once said ROC was a "hit". You're putting words in my mouth to make me sound like a biased fanboy. I'm not even a GI Joe fan at all. I believe I called it underwhelming. Financially, it was underwhelming, but I still wouldn't call it a "flat-out bomb". If it was, we wouldn’t be talking about a sequel at all unless it was a purely hypothetical discussion.

I disagree, your first post came off sounding like you had stepped into a mental asylum because what I was writing was so unfathomable and crazy that it made you question whether someone was playing an elaborate practical joke on you via an internet He-Man forum.

No, that's not too condescending.

EDIT: I see you basically reiterated what I said about Green Lantern word-for-word while I was posting this. But you seem to be missing the point: while WB claimed they were going to greenlight a sequel during its opening weekend, somebody had the foresight to say "hell no" while Paramount lacked that intelligence.

Are you implying that I copied your post? What I said (and what you said) is pretty much common sense. The reason why WB said "Hell no" is because a sequel to Green Lantern would be financial suicide, whereas GI Joe’s 302 million worldwide take is actually a very good intake, an intake that was made to look smaller because of an inflated budget. Looking at GI Joe’s healthy takings under any other circumstances, maybe Paramount thought that a smaller budgeted sequel was worthwhile?

[Hunter Knight]

WTH!! I actually liked ROC, I knew what I was getting into when I went to see it. I'm a die hard joe fan even more than motu, Sorry if it's news for some, but yes I actually prefered joes than motus (in my stories cobra killed everyone on Eternia, and blew it death star style) I know its blasphemy but hey, I was a kid.
My point is that ROC may have disappointed some fans who thought they were going to see some campy 80's crap with tons of color and people shooting lasers and not getting killed, I even read (to my disgust) that some fans were rabid cause Ripcord (a predominantly white character) was replaced with a black actor (one of the Wayans brothers) I personally do not care if GENERAL HAWK himself would have been portrayed by Morgan Freeman as long as he did a great performance. Heck or even a black He-man! I prefer substance over looks. the actor is just a canvas.

The movie universe is its own, and people should treat it as such, (is what I do with movies like resident evil and I actually enjoy them) and not expect faithful adaptations of 80's cartoons or even the comic book. If you want that, pop in your 80's dvds and be merry. As long as the essence is intact, no problem ..in other critiques, Michael Bay and his Transcrappers (parts 2 and 3 and upcoming alien ninja turtles) are an example of what NOT to do, blasting essence to kingdom come.

[Krueger]

Nothing much, but I was feeling bored. Sony updated one of their domain names on 29th May. If you click on www.mastersoftheuniversemovie.com it takes you to the Sony Pictures homepage.

[VZX]

Wow. Krueger's and Night Stalker's posts are very informative. Great stuff!

Anyway, I think Paramount pushed GI Joe back because of three reasons:
(1) Battleship bombed, badly. The similar military-themed plus over-the-top GI Joe could suffer the same fate, especially up against the new Spider-man (Battleship lost against another Marvel movie). Paramount wants some distance from the bad taste of Battleship and the competition of Spidey.
(2) Test audiences didn't like Duke getting killed. Channing Tatum's star is rising (with The Vow and 21 Jump St) which wasn't really the case when the GI Joe sequel was being filmed. Paramount wants to expand Tatum's role to capitalize on his growing fame. They would have to shoot many more scenes to change this huge plot point. ALSO: Killing the main protagonist from the first movie in the first act of the sequel is just stupid. Reminds me of the animated Transformers movie from 1986 when Optimus Prime was killed early just so Hasbro could sell more toys. Didn't Hasbro learn anything?
(3) They really do want to 3D the hell out of it. Yeah, here in the USA 3D is losing it's appeal, but 3D sales over-seas is doing astronomical business. If the GI Joe sequel is as bad as the test audiences report, Paramount can still pull in big numbers from foreign 3D sales.

Heh. Yo, Joe!

[mykan]

Wow. Krueger's and Night Stalker's posts are very informative. Great stuff!

Anyway, I think Paramount pushed GI Joe back because of three reasons:
(1) Battleship bombed, badly. The similar military-themed plus over-the-top GI Joe could suffer the same fate, especially up against the new Spider-man (Battleship lost against another Marvel movie). Paramount wants some distance from the bad taste of Battleship and the competition of Spidey.
(2) Test audiences didn't like Duke getting killed. Channing Tatum's star is rising (with The Vow and 21 Jump St) which wasn't really the case when the GI Joe sequel was being filmed. Paramount wants to expand Tatum's role to capitalize on his growing fame. They would have to shoot many more scenes to change this huge plot point. ALSO: Killing the main protagonist from the first movie in the first act of the sequel is just stupid. Reminds me of the animated Transformers movie from 1986 when Optimus Prime was killed early just so Hasbro could sell more toys. Didn't Hasbro learn anything?
(3) They really do want to 3D the hell out of it. Yeah, here in the USA 3D is losing it's appeal, but 3D sales over-seas is doing astronomical business. If the GI Joe sequel is as bad as the test audiences report, Paramount can still pull in big numbers from foreign 3D sales.

Heh. Yo, Joe!

Yo, Joe! Is right. I'm with VZX on this one. Dollar logistics aside, this sequel is in the can for whatever reason that Hasbro and Paramount have decided to produce it. The three reasons VZX pointed out for WHY GI JOE2 has been moved to 2013 are pretty much all we have to go on right now, and they make sense. 2012 is a very chock-full year, and so moving it to a March 2013 date could actually give JOE 2 a good run, rather than get buried by a competing film that's opening a week later, and then other big blockbusters after that. So many changes have been made to make JOE2 a more successful movie with fans and general audiences alike. But killing off Duke is symptomatic of lots of dumb decisions that must have been made.

Hasbro made this same mistake with Sunbow back when they made the GI Joe animated film - they killed off Duke then too. But when the Transformers animated movie underperformed, and parents and kids reacted so negatively to Optimus Prime and other characters getting killed off, plans were yanked for releasing the Joe movie in theaters, and Duke's death was changed to a coma. History's repeating itself.

Basically, the studio's doing everything it can to make sure this movie makes as much money as it can. Moving it to next year may be a very bad move, particularly if the advertising/marketing budget is shot. But they're betting that despite the losses, the changes that are being made will more than make up for them.

- - - Updated - - -

I do find it a bit of a letdown how no one else but the few us come to this board, though. Isn’t anyone else interested in the movie? Bit of a shame. This could potentially be the biggest thing to ever happen to the MOTU brand.

I would LOVE a new MOTU live action film. And it COULD be the biggest thing to happen to the MOTU brand - they just have to get it right, and I think that's where they're stuck. This movie has been in development hell for years. I was very pumped for the Justin Marks script being made - ever read it? Some of the changes were a little out there (Randor getting killed off, Skeletor wearing a chrome mask because his face is rotting off), and the film was a bit dark, but it was in a better direction than the 87 movie. I hope Sony does move this pic forward, and that we'll see something in the next couple of years. But I see no point in ruminating and speculating over it until something becomes more of a reality, and I think that's where most fans are. There's nothing to discuss until there's something to discuss.

[VZX]

mykan. I didn't know that Duke was also killed in the animated GI Joe movie, I am just so surprised they would do such a thing again. Wow, they are dumb.

Anyway, yeah, like mykan I am hopeful for a good MotU movie, but am still concerned. Even though the movie is in development hell, I would still rather wait for a good MotU movie than see a crappy one sooner. One bad movie can put a franchise on hold for a long time, or just outright kill it. For example, I doubt we will see another John Carter movie for many years. Even though many fanboys liked it, the movie bombed. It even caused Disney to fire their head of movies. Do we really want to see Masters of the Universe go the way of John Carter? Not me, I'd rather see MotU treated like The Avengers.

[lorde trooper]

Wow, i have to say i liked Green Lantern and thought until i came into this thread that there would be a sequel. Boy how wrong was i. Disappointing to see how much money was lost off that movie.

[Larry Waters]

mykan. I didn't know that Duke was also killed in the animated GI Joe movie, I am just so surprised they would do such a thing again. Wow, they are dumb.

Duke was written and animated to be killed, but after the backlash of Optimus Prime dying, Hasbro re-recorded the dialogue to say that he'd "slipped into a coma". At the end of the movie, when everyone was celebrating (from a distance-group shot-so you couldn't see who was supposed to be talking) the studio dubbed in (in, I believe, Flint's voice) "Duke is going to be A-okay!"

So Hasbro did learn...for a minute. They then forgot!

[Benedict Judas Hel]

Reminds me of the animated Transformers movie from 1986 when Optimus Prime was killed early just so Hasbro could sell more toys. Didn't Hasbro learn anything?

But killing off Duke is symptomatic of lots of dumb decisions that must have been made. Hasbro made this same mistake with Sunbow back when they made the GI Joe animated film - they killed off Duke then too. But when the Transformers animated movie underperformed, and parents and kids reacted so negatively to Optimus Prime and other characters getting killed off, plans were yanked for releasing the Joe movie in theaters, and Duke's death was changed to a coma. History's repeating itself.

mykan. I didn't know that Duke was also killed in the animated GI Joe movie, I am just so surprised they would do such a thing again. Wow, they are dumb.

Duke was written and animated to be killed, but after the backlash of Optimus Prime dying, Hasbro re-recorded the dialogue to say that he'd "slipped into a coma". At the end of the movie, when everyone was celebrating (from a distance-group shot-so you couldn't see who was supposed to be talking) the studio dubbed in (in, I believe, Flint's voice) "Duke is going to be A-okay!"

So Hasbro did learn...for a minute. They then forgot!

I must respectfully disagree with the sentiment that killing Optimus Prime was a bad decision. Initially it may have seemed so, with dismal box-office returns, despondent children and angry parents. I for one think it was a great step forward and a bold choice that I have come to love as an adult. I also feel other adults who loved Transformers as children also love the story choice. Optimus Prime's death showed he was ready to sacrifice himself for the benefit of those he felt he was charged with protecting (humans and his Autobot subordinates). Like any true leader, Optimus was willing to lay down his life to stop the forces threatening the safety of his friends and his charges. It's easy to fight for ideals and beliefs if it comes at no cost to yourself or those you care for. The true measure of a leader's worth comes when loss is a certainty.

The same thing goes with Duke. His "death" in the animated movie came as he intercepted a posionous serpent meant for his half-brother, Falcon. Again, it shows Duke willing to die for the sake of his family and teammate. If Duke would have died from contracting some disease in a brothel, than yes, I may have to agree that his death meant nothing. However, he "died" doing what he was supposed to do: protecting the lives of others from tyranny.

Killing the main protagonist from the first movie in the first act of the sequel is just stupid.

This, however, I will agree with. If Duke's death in the live action movie was to mean anything, he needed more time for his movie character to develop. The audience needed to see his heroic qualities more and his courage defined more clearly. His death came way too soon for it to have any real resonance or value.

[Eternian-King Paul]

I hope all these idol conversations about the expectations of other movies, isnt what the production people spend their time on.

[sportsandstuff777]

I hope all these idol conversations about the expectations of other movies, isnt what the production people spend their time on.

Right