'G.I. Joe' Drama: Rumored Firings at the Top

Did Paramount can G.I. Joe director Stephen Sommers? It's the day's big rumor, and if the specifics about the story weren't so believable, it would be much easier to let this one go. The story goes that the test screenings of the film returned the worst reviews in the history of Paramount. I find that part a little dubious; after all, this is the studio that made Alfie, Supsect Zero, and The Stepford Wives in a five-month span. But it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that the test screenings were bad, maybe even surprisingly so. And because this is one of the studio's big ticket items (you don't waste Super Bowl commercials on movies you want to bury), Paramount likely would react strongly to those screening results, perhaps even overreacting. Producer Don Murphy posted a very long and detailed explanation of what happened next (which has subsequently been removed), and Latino Review has the full post of the blow-by-blow. But in Murphy's story, Sommers was canned as the movie was being edited, and the studio was taking over the post-production. Again, it's no surprise that Stephen Sommers could turn in a bad movie. So at this point, the whole story is easy enough to accept. Except that according to the film's big money man, Lorenzo di Bonaventura, none of it is true. He tells Latino Review that the tests were good and got stronger every time, and that Sommers wasn't fired because there's no reason to fire a guy who delivers a film the studio is happy with. "I think it's really destructive for a director…It hurts a guy's career when people go around talking about that he was fired or he didn’t do a good job and truth is he did a really good job," di Bonaventura says. "People are going to enjoy the movie and the test audiences enjoyed the movie." Now, he's a producer, and his job is to sell his movie. I've heard conflicting reports about whether or not G.I. Joe was any good, which doesn't exactly mean the same thing as if it tested well. Murphy co-produced the two Transformers movies with di Bonaventura though not G.I. Joe, however, they're all Paramount movies so it's not like he's some beekeeper in South Carolina or anything. But the vitriol in his message board post, directed at both Sommers and di Bonaventura - whom Murphy also claims was removed from the film - does make him sound like he has an axe to grind. So who's right? I think until we hear otherwise you have to go with di Bonaventura. Murphy didn't work on the film, for starters, and even if parts of all of this are true, Hollywood has a long and none-too-proud history of covering up what it doesn't want exposed, meaning that even if Sommers had responsibilities stripped from him, he and the studio will wear happy faces in public so it looks like he's still the man pulling the strings. And obviously, Paramount believes it can fix whatever's wrong with the movie, if indeed anything is. The big question is why Murphy would come out publicly the way he did and then delete the post. Why even bring it up unless you just want to kill your own career?

Comments

[Charcole]

This movie looks like shit. And that's to bad because I grew up on G.I.Joe and know there is a good movie to be told. Just one with out stupid ass suits that make them jump higher and fight better. Probably one with out a guy that can't act in the lead also. Good job getting Joseph Gordon Levitt though.

[NIronwolf]

Considering I was present when they were reviewing the surveys from all three screenings here, I'd have to side with the statements that it was getting better each time.

When I saw it, I wouldn't say it's going to generate any Oscar performances (although the effects were very good). It's just about exactly what I'd expect from a summer action flick. It would be on my see it in the theatre list if you like action movies.