TFW2005HisstankThundercatsTokuNationToyark
Go Back   GI Joe News > All G.I. Joe News > G.I. Joe Movie
Home G.I. Joe News Toy Database Forum Rules Register Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
G.I. Joe T-Shirts

MTV Grills Channing Tatum About His "Death" In GI Joe Retaliation

MTV Movies Blog caught up with Channing Tatum recently and attempted to ask him about the rumors that his character dies in GI Joe Retaliation. Though they didn't get a definitive answer, here's a description of what transpired:

Thing is, based on the trailer, it looks as though Tatum's character very likely does not last long in the film. I attempted to get Tatum to own up to Duke's early departure with a few pointed, wink-and-nudge-type questions. First, what can he tell fans about his character's arc in the film?

"I don't know. I think they're going to have to check it out," he said. "I think that the movie is going to be better than the first one. I think that Jon Chu has a younger, hipper sensibility. ['Rise of Cobra' director] Stephen Sommers is great, I really enjoyed working with him, but I think this movie is going to be a little hipper. A little bit more edgy."

Should we prep for seeing a lot of Duke screen time?

"I don't know," Tatum said with a smile, beginning to see where I was going with my line of questioning. "I'm not sure. I haven't seen the final cut."


Then this tidbit:

At this point in our conversation, Tatum's "Vow" co-star Rachel McAdams, who was seated next to him in the video but out of frame, seemed confused about where we were going with the conversation so I whispered to her that rumor has it that Tatum's character dies in the movie, which made Tatum laugh out loud.

"Really?" he giggled, acting surprised.


Whether the death of Tatum's character was deliberately teased in the 1st trailer, or will actually happen remains to be seen. The next full glimpse of footage will be in a few days, with the GI Joe Retaliation Super Bowl Trailer.
Credit: krooklyn of the Hiss Tank Forums!
Views: 26,351
Latest News
IDW Press Release - The World Will Always Need GI Joe
IDW Transformers VS GI Joe #2 Preview
G.I.Joe Battleground Capture Event - Long Live Cobra Commander Now Live!
NJCC November 9th 2014 Guest Announcement Christian Brock and Shapeways
Only Eight Days Left For 3DJoes Vehicle Box Art Posters Kickstarter!
3D Printing Tutorials By Phantro Now Available!
Josh Feldman Joins Hasbro Studios For G. I. Joe III
G.I. Joe 50th Anniversary Hallmark 2014 Holiday Ornament
Retaliation Roadblock by Hot Toys Now Instock And ready To Ship
New Hasbro Trademark Revealed - Micro Machines
Latest News From This Category
Josh Feldman Joins Hasbro Studios For G. I. Joe III
How Chris Pratt Almost Became A G. I. Joe
How Hasbro Decides Which Toys They Will Turn Into Movies
Jonathan Lemkin Chosen To Write GI Joe 3
G. I. Joe 3 To Begin Filming In Early 2015
Lorenzo di Bonaventura Says A Live Action Transformers/G.I. Joe Crossover May Not Happen
G. I. Joe 3 Confirmed For 2016
G. I. Joe 3 Teaser Poster Revealed
GI Joe 3 Update - Jon Chu Out; Search For New Director On
G.I. Joe 3 On Hold Jon M. Chu Will Direct Jem and the Holograms First
Reply To Article DISCUSSION: (Jump To This Thread On The Boards)
krooklyn:
I know a number of you dislike his performance in ROC and Tatum never appeared to be very supportive of ROC. But, I like the character and I can only hope that death is their final answer for Duke.
If there is one thing that does kinda annoy me in movies, is how often they "kill off" well characters. Be it hero or especially enemy (Raimi's Spiderman: Green Goblin, Doc Oct, etc. Singer's X-Men: Toad, Sabretooth, etc.)
CobraCommandr:
I'll tell you one thing, either he dies or he just isn't in the movie that much. He isn't giving a straight answer and you know if he was in the movie a lot and they asked, he'd just say yeah and that he had fun doing a lot of the scenes. He'd go into detail into what he had to do in scenes, just like all the other actors have been.

He can't say he dies or he's not in it that much, because of the importance of his character and how it was played in the first movie. Basically, this is him trying to bluff whenever asked about it and let's just say he has a terrible poker face.
gunslingercbr:
Quote:
Originally Posted by krooklyn View Post
I know a number of you dislike his performance in ROC and Tatum never appeared to be very supportive of ROC. But, I like the character and I can only hope that death is their final answer for Duke.
If there is one thing that does kinda annoy me in movies, is how often they "kill off" well characters. Be it hero or especially enemy (Raimi's Spiderman: Green Goblin, Doc Oct, etc. Singer's X-Men: Toad, Sabretooth, etc.)
for a movie it makes sense for villains to die. in action movies, the villain always dies at the end. that's the finality audiences expect from movies.

nobody paid to see Hans Gruber be taken alive in Die Hard, they paid to see he got what he deserved. comic book movies are no different. they aren't the comic which is an ongoing story, they are individual movies with an end, and an end for the villains.
krooklyn:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslingercbr View Post
for a movie it makes sense for villains to die. in action movies, the villain always dies at the end. that's the finality audiences expect from movies.

nobody paid to see Hans Gruber be taken alive in Die Hard, they paid to see he got what he deserved. comic book movies are no different. they aren't the comic which is an ongoing story, they are individual movies with an end, and an end for the villains.
True dat. I just hate to see them written out with a death. I understand the current movie shifting from the unpopular ROC, I just hope they didn't write out all the ROC cast (as far as Joe team members) as dead.
zedhatch:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslingercbr View Post
for a movie it makes sense for villains to die. in action movies, the villain always dies at the end. that's the finality audiences expect from movies.

nobody paid to see Hans Gruber be taken alive in Die Hard, they paid to see he got what he deserved. comic book movies are no different. they aren't the comic which is an ongoing story, they are individual movies with an end, and an end for the villains.
Magneto didn't die, Joker didn't die, it's not a be all end all move.
RolandofGilead:
It's just hard when you're looking at a villain (or hero) who's been involved in a story line for years, or decades only to see them die after only a couple of hours.

How long did Two Face reign in Dark Knight? Maybe 15 minutes before getting killed?
gunslingercbr:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zedhatch View Post
Magneto didn't die, Joker didn't die, it's not a be all end all move.
exceptions do not make the rule.
krooklyn:
Ok, I see my post/ thread got a lil' front page treatment (yay me). Thank you mods. But the new article title is inaccurate as all hell. The possible death of Duke in Retaliation is only questioned and never answered. If anything, an obvious rumor that is making the circles, being asked about by MTV just adds more speculation.
krooklyn:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolandofGilead View Post
It's just hard when you're looking at a villain (or hero) who's been involved in a story line for years, or decades only to see them die after only a couple of hours.

How long did Two Face reign in Dark Knight? Maybe 15 minutes before getting killed?
Yeah! It would be nice to see some of the villains not "bite the bullet". I liked how Nolan treated the Joker in TDK, but felt a lil' disappointing that Dent couldn't just elude death.
Shin Densetsu:
Quote:
Originally Posted by krooklyn View Post
Ok, I see my post/ thread got a lil' front page treatment (yay me). Thank you mods. But the new article title is inaccurate as all hell. The possible death of Duke in Retaliation is only questioned and never answered. If anything, an obvious rumor that is making the circles, being asked about by MTV just adds more speculation.
How so? The chick at MTV was trying to ask Tatum if he dies in the movie and the guy didn't give a conclusive answer. To anyone who watched the trailer it was obvious that his death was intended to be alluded to, as a way to grab the attention of viewers.
commentor:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zedhatch View Post
Magneto didn't die, Joker didn't die, it's not a be all end all move.
Thanks for saying that as I don't want the commander to die:(
THE RED SHADOWS:
I think it would be a bad idea to kill of Duke
Darkfire:
I don't believe Dent died in TDK, just injured from his fall.
Bleak5170:
Tatum's been in a fair number of movies coming out lately, (Ten Year, Haywire, The Vow). If he was in G.I. Joe very much he wouldn't have had time to appear in so many other flicks. I fully expect him to be killed off near the beginning.
Jmacq1:
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE RED SHADOWS View Post
I think it would be a bad idea to kill of Duke
Why?

Seriously, what is there about Channing Tatum's Duke that's so integral to the movie incarnation of G.I. Joe that it simply would not survive or be a good/better movie without him?

The movie-verse isn't the Marvel comics.

The movie-verse isn't Sunbow.

The movie-verse isn't IDW.

The movie-verse isn't Renegades.

Killing Duke in the movie isn't going to make the character disappear from the franchise. It just means in this one particular incarnation of G.I. Joe, Duke died and isn't the be all, end all of the Joe team.

Is that such a bad thing? People have forgotten in the "core character driven" 2000's that the only time (in the ARAH era) Duke was really "the face" of G.I. Joe was Sunbow's first season. After that, he basically split screen-time with Flint. From an overall marketing perspective, Snake-Eyes is more important.

I mean, God forbid Hasbro have an excuse to NOT make 12 variants of Duke for the movie (sure, we'll probably get 12 variants of RoadRock instead, but at least that's a character that doesn't have 45 versions already out there).
Caravankidd:
Killing off Duke early on would be a nice way for the film to say up front that this film is going to be nothing like the first one. It also seems like a way to make fans who were disappointed in the first film a little happier because since the first movie was all about Duke and how every character was connected to him by killing off Duke they are symbolically killing the first movie.
krooklyn:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shin Densetsu View Post
How so? The chick at MTV was trying to ask Tatum if he dies in the movie and the guy didn't give a conclusive answer. To anyone who watched the trailer it was obvious that his death was intended to be alluded to, as a way to grab the attention of viewers.
Even still, it's only rumored and the new title misleads by confirming that Duke dies, which is untrue. We won't know until the movies release.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
Why?

Seriously, what is there about Channing Tatum's Duke that's so integral to the movie incarnation of G.I. Joe that it simply would not survive or be a good/better movie without him?

The movie-verse isn't the Marvel comics.

The movie-verse isn't Sunbow.

The movie-verse isn't IDW.

The movie-verse isn't Renegades.

Killing Duke in the movie isn't going to make the character disappear from the franchise. It just means in this one particular incarnation of G.I. Joe, Duke died and isn't the be all, end all of the Joe team.

Is that such a bad thing? People have forgotten in the "core character driven" 2000's that the only time (in the ARAH era) Duke was really "the face" of G.I. Joe was Sunbow's first season. After that, he basically split screen-time with Flint. From an overall marketing perspective, Snake-Eyes is more important.

I mean, God forbid Hasbro have an excuse to NOT make 12 variants of Duke for the movie (sure, we'll probably get 12 variants of RoadRock instead, but at least that's a character that doesn't have 45 versions already out there).
IMO, killing Duke in Retaliation would be too easy. I don't care that they never use the character again in future movies, but it's not necessary to kill the character. Tatum-haters just wanna see the character killed off because they can't get over themselves and their feelings about ROC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravankidd View Post
Killing off Duke early on would be a nice way for the film to say up front that this film is going to be nothing like the first one. It also seems like a way to make fans who were disappointed in the first film a little happier because since the first movie was all about Duke and how every character was connected to him by killing off Duke they are symbolically killing the first movie.
Killing the character, alone won't make Retaliation stand apart from ROC. It's more apparent in other ways that Retaliation will be better. Fanboys need to get a life and get over Sommer's ROC.
Trigue:
on the bright side, if Duke is killed off. Maybe......maaaaaaaybe we won't get so many Duke figures in the future.
whitefox360:
My opinion on the matter is irrelevant and ive no experience outside liking what i like about things, but, to me, killing a character is nothing, i say again, NOTHING short of lazy writing and straight up hollywood egotism.

Characters thatve existed for generations are entered into different media to expand their story, not end it. If a writer or studio doesnt feel comfortable adding to the mythology and instead opt to terminate it, theyve no business having access to the property to start with.

To me, thats the diffetence between good movie and bad and its also why i quit non joe comics. If you have to kill your ip cornerstones to tell your story, you need to tell it elsewhere. Changes are fine, updates are crucial, but dont sell me baseball and tell me its football.
Gideon75:
The rumor is Duke gets into a one on one fight with Crystal Ball and loses his life.
SonOfMindbender:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gideon75 View Post
The rumor is Duke gets into a one on one fight with Crystal Ball and loses his life.
Oh, I heard it was Chrystal Gayle

Crystal Gayle - Don't It Make My Brown Eyes Blue - YouTube
Jmacq1:
Quote:
Originally Posted by krooklyn View Post
IMO, killing Duke in Retaliation would be too easy. I don't care that they never use the character again in future movies, but it's not necessary to kill the character. Tatum-haters just wanna see the character killed off because they can't get over themselves and their feelings about ROC.
Except that in your own words if they "never use the character again" they may as well kill him off if it helps propel the story forward. It's not just "fan-service" if it also services the plot and a "never going to be used again" character may as well be dead. If the franchise is successful (or hell, probably even if it isn't) eventually it will get a "reboot" like everything else and voila...Duke is alive again and played by someone else. The point being, there's no reason the character should be sacrosanct and it isn't necessarily just "lazy writing." No more lazy than "writing the character out" and never using them again, that's for sure. Either way, the character isn't getting used, and if they're dead at least there's an in-universe reason why they're being ignored.



Quote:
Originally Posted by whitefox360 View Post
My opinion on the matter is irrelevant and ive no experience outside liking what i like about things, but, to me, killing a character is nothing, i say again, NOTHING short of lazy writing and straight up hollywood egotism.

Characters thatve existed for generations are entered into different media to expand their story, not end it. If a writer or studio doesnt feel comfortable adding to the mythology and instead opt to terminate it, theyve no business having access to the property to start with.

To me, thats the diffetence between good movie and bad and its also why i quit non joe comics. If you have to kill your ip cornerstones to tell your story, you need to tell it elsewhere. Changes are fine, updates are crucial, but dont sell me baseball and tell me its football.
Here's the flaw in your argument: The general audiences that watch the Hollywood version of IPs that originated elsewhere are not necessarily comic-readers or otherwise fans of the original media the IPs came from, and their tastes don't lean towards "stories that last for hundreds/thousands of issues in perpetual stalemate between good and evil forevermore." They want closure in their films, and the easiest way to do that is to have the bad guy die, or at least appear to die at the end unless there's a compelling reason to keep them around. With gaps of 2-3 or even more years between movies, there is a limited amount of time that you can keep the same cast and crew on a film before they basically age themselves out of their roles, and it becomes time for a reboot (soft, hard, or otherwise).

The point being, Hollywood isn't the comic books and by its' very nature can't really work like the comic books, so trying to apply the same "rules" to it is nonsensical. The only franchise that comes close to that is James Bond, and even that finally got a "reboot" when Casino Royale popped up (plus was generally occupied by throwaway villains that usually didn't last past one movie).

Beyond that, IPs aren't licensed to "add to" them. They're licensed to "distill" them for the big screen. It's an alternate take, not just a continuation of what comes before. Ergo the movie Joe-verse isn't the same as other Joe-verses. If Duke dies in this one, so what? He'll still be around everywhere else, and Hasbro will still probably crank out dozens more versions of him in the off-movie periods. Just because stories can't be told with Duke in this particular movie-verse anymore doesn't mean they can't tell Duke stories anywhere else...even on the big screen when this current series of Joe films inevitably ends, only to be revived at some unspecified point in the future for another attempt at franchise-building from a "fresh start."

Heck, this should be ESPECIALLY true for G.I. Joe, which has never had a single "official" continuity that overrides the others, and has always had multiple continuities running, often simultaneously.
Kitchen Viper:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gideon75 View Post
The rumor is Duke gets into a one on one fight with Crystal Ball and loses his life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfMindbender View Post
No, he chokes to death on a Krystal hamburger.

Krystal (restaurant) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
gunslingercbr:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
Why?

Seriously, what is there about Channing Tatum's Duke that's so integral to the movie incarnation of G.I. Joe that it simply would not survive or be a good/better movie without him?

The movie-verse isn't the Marvel comics.

The movie-verse isn't Sunbow.

The movie-verse isn't IDW.

The movie-verse isn't Renegades.

Killing Duke in the movie isn't going to make the character disappear from the franchise. It just means in this one particular incarnation of G.I. Joe, Duke died and isn't the be all, end all of the Joe team.

Is that such a bad thing? People have forgotten in the "core character driven" 2000's that the only time (in the ARAH era) Duke was really "the face" of G.I. Joe was Sunbow's first season. After that, he basically split screen-time with Flint. From an overall marketing perspective, Snake-Eyes is more important.

I mean, God forbid Hasbro have an excuse to NOT make 12 variants of Duke for the movie (sure, we'll probably get 12 variants of RoadRock instead, but at least that's a character that doesn't have 45 versions already out there).
clearly you are right that the movie is completely separate from any of the past incarnations of G.I. Joe and could also be completely separate from any future incarnations, and thus killing Duke off would could have zero bearing on the character beyond the movie.

that being said, how likely do you honestly think that is?

I think it is more likely that Hasbro is, once again, hoping to use the movie to propel interest in the brand and carry over the interest derived in it with the audience it brings in to their future versions of G.I. Joe. and part of that would be using the characters in similar roles. so Roadblock would become the lead, Joe Colton probably the commander, with Flint and Lady Jaye the other significant characters (the same as Hasbro has done with Transformers).

so, by killing Duke in the movie, it wouldn't make much sense to create a "continuation" of the movie where Duke isn't dead. so, by killing Duke in the movie you do kill Duke off for the immediate future.

I don't think it is unreasonable to consider this the realistic, or at least a realistic, approach that Hasbro is taking with the movie and how they will use the brand going forward. It is what they have done with Transformers, and what they did with G.I. Joe (i.e. black Ripcord).

obviously it is not the only option, but it certainly follows past precedence which I think makes for far more realistic speculation than assuming they would now divert form it. and with that in mind, I don't believe they have any interest in removing Duke from the ongoing short-term incarnation of the brand, even if they shift the focus to Roadblock primarily.

but we will see.
gunslingercbr:
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitefox360 View Post
To me, thats the diffetence between good movie and bad and its also why i quit non joe comics. If you have to kill your ip cornerstones to tell your story, you need to tell it elsewhere. Changes are fine, updates are crucial, but dont sell me baseball and tell me its football.
no, it is the difference between a movie, which in most cases is a single story and not meant as a continuation, and a comic which is a continuation.

for a comic it doesn't make sense to introduce a villain in one issue and kill him off that very issue because for comics stories aren't concluding in one issue.

for a movie that is meant as a single story, having a villain live at the end eliminates finality, and audiences expect finality in movies. exceptions like Magneto are simply because the character was intended as part of the continuation of the larger story they wanted to tell over numerous movies, unlike Sabretooth or Toad that they had no further use for a thus the characters had to have a conclusion.

you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is based on applying comic book story telling to movie story telling, which just isn't a really good argument.
Jmacq1:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslingercbr View Post
clearly you are right that the movie is completely separate from any of the past incarnations of G.I. Joe and could also be completely separate from any future incarnations, and thus killing Duke off would could have zero bearing on the character beyond the movie.

that being said, how likely do you honestly think that is?

I think it is more likely that Hasbro is, once again, hoping to use the movie to propel interest in the brand and carry over the interest derived in it with the audience it brings in to their future versions of G.I. Joe. and part of that would be using the characters in similar roles. so Roadblock would become the lead, Joe Colton probably the commander, with Flint and Lady Jaye the other significant characters (the same as Hasbro has done with Transformers).

so, by killing Duke in the movie, it wouldn't make much sense to create a "continuation" of the movie where Duke isn't dead. so, by killing Duke in the movie you do kill Duke off for the immediate future.

I don't think it is unreasonable to consider this the realistic, or at least a realistic, approach that Hasbro is taking with the movie and how they will use the brand going forward. It is what they have done with Transformers, and what they did with G.I. Joe (i.e. black Ripcord).

obviously it is not the only option, but it certainly follows past precedence which I think makes for far more realistic speculation than assuming they would now divert form it. and with that in mind, I don't believe they have any interest in removing Duke from the ongoing short-term incarnation of the brand, even if they shift the focus to Roadblock primarily.

but we will see.

That's all well and good (and generally true), but it doesn't really answer the question:

Why would it be such a bad thing for Duke to "take a rest" for a while? (I realize this isn't the position you personally are taking, but that's the main thrust of what I'm trying to get at).

Folks saying, "I don't think they should kill Duke in the movie" should have a good reason for making that statement. Even if it's as simple as "Duke's my favorite character no matter who's playing him" (or what have you). What purpose is served by keeping him alive vs. killing him off (for a while)?

Even if it's unlikely that Hasbro would let Duke die (personally I'm about 60/40 in favor of "yeah, they're gonna kill him" at the moment), the possibility is still worthy of discussion. I think G.I. Joe can survive just fine without Duke for a while. Others may disagree.
gunslingercbr:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
Why would it be such a bad thing for Duke to "take a rest" for a while? (I realize this isn't the position you personally are taking, but that's the main thrust of what I'm trying to get at).
I am with you, I don't think it is a bad thing. in fact, it is probably a great thing. G.I. Joe has not worked very well for a while with Duke the face of the brand? why not make Roadblock the lead, and simply eliminate Duke in the immediate future. there would be no confusion for new audiences.

I just don't think Hasbro will do so.
Jmacq1:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslingercbr View Post
I am with you, I don't think it is a bad thing. in fact, it is probably a great thing. G.I. Joe has not worked very well for a while with Duke the face of the brand? why not make Roadblock the lead, and simply eliminate Duke in the immediate future. there would be no confusion for new audiences.

I just don't think Hasbro will do so.
And I slightly lean towards the opposite side of that: Having a shred of hope that Hasbro's looked at the overall franchise and said, "Well, this Duke guy hasn't really done it for us these last 15 years, and now we have an A-List action hero playing one of our other characters, plus Duke's old-school "replacement" (Flint) as one of the secondary characters. Maybe we can hang the franchise on them for a while and see where it goes."
Shin Densetsu:
Quote:
Originally Posted by krooklyn View Post
Even still, it's only rumored and the new title misleads by confirming that Duke dies, which is untrue. We won't know until the movies release.


IMO, killing Duke in Retaliation would be too easy. I don't care that they never use the character again in future movies, but it's not necessary to kill the character. Tatum-haters just wanna see the character killed off because they can't get over themselves and their feelings about ROC.



Killing the character, alone won't make Retaliation stand apart from ROC. It's more apparent in other ways that Retaliation will be better. Fanboys need to get a life and get over Sommer's ROC.
The title I used confirms nothing, hence why I used quotation marks.
Troynos:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunslingercbr View Post
I am with you, I don't think it is a bad thing. in fact, it is probably a great thing. G.I. Joe has not worked very well for a while with Duke the face of the brand? why not make Roadblock the lead, and simply eliminate Duke in the immediate future. there would be no confusion for new audiences.

I just don't think Hasbro will do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmacq1 View Post
And I slightly lean towards the opposite side of that: Having a shred of hope that Hasbro's looked at the overall franchise and said, "Well, this Duke guy hasn't really done it for us these last 15 years, and now we have an A-List action hero playing one of our other characters, plus Duke's old-school "replacement" (Flint) as one of the secondary characters. Maybe we can hang the franchise on them for a while and see where it goes."
I'm with you guys.

I think the Duke-era should be ended. I hope/think maybe they will do so now.

Flint was pretty popular during his time at Sunbow. I think the movie might move Flint forward. It makes sense to not build around The Rock/Roadblock but around a lesser name. I can see them building around Roadblock, but I think I could see them pushing Flint forward more.

Using the Rock to draw people into the movie, and using the movie to push Flint forward might make sense.

Flint's presence in the comic has been increased recently as well. He was promient in Renegades.
sci-find:
Man, we'll have a laugh about these threads in about 6 months!!

I'm saying:
He doesn't die because:
1. the corpse flint checked for vitals is NOT Tatum
2. They capture SE and if there's one Joe that they should kill instead of capture it's SE, which makes me think Cobra will also capture Duke.
3. It would be a giant cop-out

Now let's wait and see who's right :-)
Highway:
Hip? Edgy? I'm there bro!
Ok i'm excited as hell for this movie but what a pointless interview.
"I don't know nothin' 'bout my own role in this film, herp derp"
 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO
Powered by: vBadvanced Dynamics.
Sponsors
G.I. Joe Toys
G.I. Joe Toys
G.I. Joe Toys
G.I. Joe Toys
Custom G.I. Joe and Cobra Stickers
G.I. Joe Toys
G.I. Joe Toys
G.I. Joe Toys
G.I. Joe Toys
G.I. Joe Toys
G.I. Joe on Ebay Now!
G.I. Joe on Ebay Now!
Cool Stuff
NJCC