Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

HALO in trouble?!?

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here... I'm about to run off to the airport for Prague... and I'm probably risking being late by typing this up, but I had to make mention of it before I left. Variety is saying that 20th Century Fox and Universal have backed out of financing HALO on the eve of actually having to pony up their $5 mil up front money to Microsoft for the rights. Microsoft is also due to get 10% of the film on the backend.

The silver lining in this cloud is that Peter Jackson and his Wingnut team are still involved as is Neill Blomkamp. Weta is still doing premliminary preproduction in New Zealand and I'm sure some other studio will New Line into this franchise since Universal and Fox have Mirimax'd out of it. I have no doubt that if done right, HALO will be a massive flick and I really don't care if Universal or Fox don't put it out, as long as the creative team behind the film keeps putting innovation and storytelling in front of the business angle.


Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:25 a.m. CST

    First!

    by No Talent Ass Clown

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:28 a.m. CST

    Blomkamp must stay.

    by Spartacus Hughs

    Or take over Transformers.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:28 a.m. CST

    ABANDON SHIP!

    by Ribbons

    I wonder what prompted the two studios to balk, but I'm not too concerned. It would have been a ways away from being made anyway, methinks, and in that time I'm sure WETA and Blomkamp (sp?) will be able to find another distributor.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:32 a.m. CST

    Theyll Greenlit Electra, Van Helsing, AVP

    by flamingrunt

    The omen sequel, fantastic four and doom but draw the line at Halo? Good move

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:34 a.m. CST

    Yeah, but I'm sure they passed on

    by mshawkin

    all sorts of things they are kicking themselves for now. Oh well, Quint's right, better off with a studio who knows what kind of movie they will have on their hands.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:41 a.m. CST

    Jackson's Halo slipped...

    by Boba Fat

    with the ice skating scene in King Kong. As for the game, never played it, but if he's panning any scenes on ice you can count me out

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:44 a.m. CST

    I meant planning...

    by Boba Fat

    but "panning" works OK

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:44 a.m. CST

    Wow. Fox and Universal are really fucking retarded.

    by MattCG

    Whoever puts this out has the biggest flick of the respective year. With that creative team and the fanbase already in place? It's insane to think this won't be a fucking massive hit. Jackson needs to take it to New Line. There are people working there that aren't totally fucking stupid.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:49 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson will have ice-skating grunts in Halo

    by newc0253

    and it will be funny because grunts are funny. p.s. if Halo does enter development hell, i doubt it will stay there for long.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:48 a.m. CST

    Can I ask something?

    by pandamaster83

    I don't have an Xbox, but I plan on having an Xbox 360 by next summer when I've graduated and the great games have arrived. As such, I've never played Halo so I'm not familiar with the storyline. So the obvious question from folk like me is why is it called Halo?

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:49 a.m. CST

    New Line

    by aestheticity

    Time to step up and make a couple hundred million

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:53 a.m. CST

    I agree...

    by Seph_J

    ...these studios are dick heads. Jesus, I would put money up for this film... if I knew how to!

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:08 a.m. CST

    I hope it all Dreamworks out okay.

    by Psycho-Man

    Nudge nudge, wink wink. Seriously though, Halo has the potential to become the first decent video game-based movie ever made. I mean the movie is an almost guaranteed blockbuster if it's given a proper budget anyway, so I don't understand why every film studio isn't jumping at the chance to make this one. Perhaps some of them are just strapped for cash. Nah that can't be it. Peter Jackson's involvement is encouraging however, so I don't think it'll be messed up too badly, wherever it lands.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:11 a.m. CST

    Hmmm...

    by Messiahman

    I wonder if this means that we can expect another of Moriarty's crazed anti-Fox rants in the future. I still chuckle sadly when I think back to that particular bit of career suicide. Way to shoot yourself in the foot on future scripting gigs, bro!

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:13 a.m. CST

    News Video and Jackson comments

    by FofR

    http://halomovie.trivialbeing.net/index.php "Microsoft is already in talks with other distribution partners and preparation for the movie will continue. Most of this development is at Peter Jackson's Weta effects studios in New Zealand, so delays should be small."

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:13 a.m. CST

    Where are the bad news?

    by DerLanghaarige

    I mean, FOX won't produce it! That's good! Right now, Fox is kinda evil!

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:23 a.m. CST

    Hey MattCG, don't you mean...

    by No Talent Ass Clown

    Fox and Universal are "Fucktarded"? C'mon, it's so much more fun to put the two together!!!

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:24 a.m. CST

    CAP'N

    by nuetro

    I JUS CANT DO IT CAP'N! I DUN HAVE DA POWA... to make a movie that isn't business oriented. :(

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:29 a.m. CST

    So what...

    by binarybender

    I'm assuming it will be a sack of shit like all the other game adaptations.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:44 a.m. CST

    It'll be a hit and then.....

    by Mr_Sleep001

    ...Fox and Universal will fire the execs that decided not to invest. But besides that Peter Jackson is becoming the JK Rowling of Hollywood. Sure money that no-one will edit. No-one had the balls to tell Jackson to cut down King Kong because he directs 'epic' films when it could have been a lot tighter film. Just like no-one will say you 'know what Rowling that chapter was pointless, lose it!'

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:49 a.m. CST

    It turns out...

    by Ribbons

    ...that Universal cut ties with Jackson over the amount of money either Weta or Microsoft was receiving in the deal. After 'M:i:III', I guess I can see that.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7 a.m. CST

    M:I:III wasn't so bad...

    by Mr_Sleep001

    ..I quite enjoyed it, but Tom Cruise sabotaged it with all his zaniness.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:06 a.m. CST

    STUPIDITY: The True Story of Universal and Fox - 2008.

    by brokentusk

    Well, it's fine, they'll regret it later. Tom Rothman doesn't deserve this film anyway.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:22 a.m. CST

    It's a video game movie, right?

    by BizarroJerry

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but no matter how great the game or the concept or whatever, has there really been any successful movie based on a video game? Flicks like Tomb Raider and Resident Evil have their fans, but aren't what I'd deem popular or successful movies.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Knew it...

    by abiggerboat

    Fucking knew it would happen. Mind you, the fact that these are the worst 2 fucking studios right now, makes it kind of good news really!

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:28 a.m. CST

    If microsoft were smart...

    by zabbadoo

    ...they'd give the red v blue guys a couple hundred million and let them go nuts with it

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:27 a.m. CST

    How did Universal f' over Serenity again?

    by Messiahman

    They did multiple preview showings, marketed the hell out of it, and it still bombed...because it was merely a decent continuation of a consistently overbudget cancelled television series that few people watched (and I'm not dissing it, just speaking the plain truth) Hell, Universal basically did Whedon a huge favor by even giving him the funds to film what amounted to nothing more than a vanity project. Whedon's a solid if not great writer, but SERENITY by its very nature only ever appealed to a tiny fanbase, in spite of what rabidly insane "browncoats" (ugh!) might have you think.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:30 a.m. CST

    MetalWater

    by rev_skarekroe

    I stopped reading your post after the second double-exclamation point.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:32 a.m. CST

    Smart move from Fox and Universal

    by MasterKenobi

    There were those expecting Kong would beat Titanic at BO or at least make a billion dollars. If it really had done so Fox and Universal whould never have pulled out. Fanatic fans of Jackson claimed Universal´s foreign marketing campaign for Kong sucked, some said they shouldn´t have released it so close to Narnia. Peter Jackson should be blamed. He made a weak movie that was too long, had too many worthless characters and a very weak script. He should learn from how Pirates 2 director handled multiple characters and made a hell of a fun movie. A movie that isn´t called Pirates 3 or Spiderman 3 shouldn´t cost 200 million regardless of what kind of fanbase it has. And Halo´s fanbase is exaggarated anyway. Not even mr. new king of hollywood, Peter Jackson with all his post-LOTR hubris can guarantee a bluckbuster. Universal has only learned their lesson from Kong, but also from looking at how Superman performed. Both cost over 200 million and both were much less than what fans had been expecting

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:33 a.m. CST

    FOX sucks

    by triplefive

    thank god they're not involved anymore. bunch of fucks.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:41 a.m. CST

    Pandamaster, the Halo game is overrated

    by MasterKenobi

    The reason why it has it´s fans, is because it was the only good game on the old X-box, and some people just need to have a console at home. Buy a Playstation 3, a far superior video-game system with much better games. Don´t believe those who say Xbox 360 will have better games. PS3 will rule next gen.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:42 a.m. CST

    At last!

    by Brendon

    A chance! The new studio might boot Blomkamp off - have you seen Alive in Jo'Burg? Sheesh.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:45 a.m. CST

    MasterKenobi

    by Mr_Sleep001

    Couldn't agree with you more. Kong was well promoted over here, but it was just too long and had storylines that went everywhere without leading to any conclusion. And that horrible dino stampede where it was more 'see Jamie Bell run - green screen style'

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:46 a.m. CST

    DickheadKenobi

    by Vi

    King Kong's worldwide gross was $550 million. It had a budget of $207 million. This doesn't take into account DVD sales. It made money. Lots of it. The "lesson" Universal learned from Kong was that it was a a money maker.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:54 a.m. CST

    Vi - I'm only talking about domestic gross

    by Mr_Sleep001

    But for 2005, four films finished above Kong and Universal only had one film in the top 10. WB had 3, Fox had 2 and only made $9m more than Wedding Crashers which had a fraction of the budget

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Why does Microsoft need a movie studio involved at all?

    by SnapT

    It's a HALO movie. And Microsoft has billions of dollars. I don't get it.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Vi--more budgety stuff.

    by Mr_Sleep001

    Wedding Crashers Budget of $40m and gross takings worldwide of $285m (Profit 245m). Kong budget of $207m Gross of $550m (profit 343m). So Universal spent 5 times New Line for less than 2 the profit of Wedding Crashers. Kong made money, but then again so did water world. If Universal had used a smaller budget and produced a better film, profit would have been huge, Star Wars ROTS Budget of $113m, gross of $850m (profit of $732m) now that's a success.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:14 a.m. CST

    This is the first I've heard of this

    by XoanonTORN

    Mind you I'm not privy to much of the financial side of things. I am sure PJ can secure financing for this. <p> Michael Regina<br> Editor in Chief/Segment Producer<br> http://www.TheOneRing.net<br> http://www.KongisKing.net<br> http://www.TheOneLion.net<br> http://whatisthedavincicode.blogspot.com/

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:14 a.m. CST

    Mr_Sleep Don´t forget Jamie Bell and Hayes

    by MasterKenobi

    Yes, MR_Sleep, that was only the beginning of it. Then there was the Hayes-Jimmy love story, wrong actors. Only Naomi Watts, Andy Serkis as Lumpy and as Kong were good. Oh before i forget. I hope all understand I´m beeing sarcastic when I say Hayes-Jimmy love story. I also think there will be lots of gayness in Halo, cause Peter Jackson has showed he likes gay tendencies like Hobbit love in LOTR and interracial gay love in Kong. Just had to say that also. All those who want to start a homophobia discussion, be my guests.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:18 a.m. CST

    Pandamaster83

    by TheNewAddiction

    The reason for the name Halo is that it takes place on a halo shaped 'planet'. Sort of like Larry Niven's novel "Ringworld". Anyways, I too was extremely doubtful about it, but it really is one of the all time great 1st person shooters, on par with games like Half-Life. Great story line, great characters, great action.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Vi

    by MasterKenobi

    You can read Mr_Sleeps posts for enlightment. I won´t bother answering you about Kongs Box Office, but I would like to beat you bloody. Could it be that you are one of those stupid fuckers from kongisking? Most of them have stopped liking Kong anyway. So why don´t you realize that Kong sucked big time?

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:23 a.m. CST

    MasterKenobi

    by Mr_Sleep001

    You're right though. I think Jackson felt lost because he didn't have any marginally homoerotic hobbits looking wistfully at one another. I think it was meant to be a father son dichotomy, someone for the cabin boy to look up to, but it just didn't work. When the film worked best was when it was being fantastical rather than labouring thorugh a tired plot. PJ will be leaning over the director's shoulder saying 'look that's enough action, spectacle and fun. Now I want you to put in an hours worth of the Master Sergeant looking longfully at the soldiers he's fighting with and discussing the nature of war mournfully. Anything less than 180 minutes and you're fired. Remember kid, everyone likes rambling waffle I know I do!'

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Mr_Sleep001

    by XoanonTORN

    Profits aren't that blak and white, when I produced 'Ringers: Lord of the Fans' we were given the$$ breakdown by Sony, and I swear it seemed we were giving out our profits to the guy who mopped the floor before any of it trickled down to us (the producers)...so who really knows how much money actually made it back to Uni on all those movies. <p> Michael Regina<br> Editor in Chief/Segment Producer<br> http://www.TheOneRing.net<br> http://www.KongisKing.net<br> http://www.TheOneLion.net<br> http://whatisthedavincicode.blogspot.com/

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:25 a.m. CST

    XoanonTORN

    by Mr_Sleep001

    check here for box office details. www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2005

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:25 a.m. CST

    Jackson...

    by MPJedi2

    Do something that doesn't feel like an overblown vanity project and we'll talk. LOTR was reined in, and GOOD, because you had the fans watching every single move, and the books as a guide. Even at the "Exteneded Editions" are ponderous and suck the life out of the films. (I know the rabid Tolkein fans feel different, and also the blinded "bigger is better" film fans, but it's true.) And let's not even talk about how even the action scenes in Kong sucked. Hell, except for the last half hour, that movie sucked ass. I figure Fox and Universal are looking at that and thinking, "hmmm...maybe we don't want to give away 10% + 5 Mil, when it'll be an underperforming 3-hour wankfest."

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:29 a.m. CST

    XoanonTORN

    by Mr_Sleep001

    I suppose that's before promotion is taken into account to. Distribution, so I guess that's why Universal were a little underwhlemed with what was delivered. I know PJ is only producing, but I hope they don't make anything too ponderous. You can be epic in scope without being epic in time frame.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:32 a.m. CST

    One more thing Vi

    by MasterKenobi

    The reason I said I want to do things to you, is because you were verbally attacking me for the second time. In my book if someone calls me things once, I can ignore it, but if that happens for the second time that person needs beating up. So you want to meet for a little chat?

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:37 a.m. CST

    Thanks Addiction

    by pandamaster83

    It's not that I'm doubtful, it's just that I never got round to buying it. I'll almost certainly pick up Halo 3 for the 360 when I get one. Given time and financial constraints, I'm a two-system-max type guy so this gen I had Gamecube and PS2. MasterKenobi, I don't intend to get a PS3 because most of the games worth getting within the next year will also be on Xbox 360. I don't just believe the "word on the street" so to speak: i base my choices on extensive covereage. I'll get a Wii too because I have enough instore credit to get one without cash and it's something refreshing. If I bought PS3, I wouldn't buy the other two on principle since I'm not willing to take out a mortgage just to have more than one system, so might as well get two (besides, it doesn't come out here until March, and even then, supplies will probably still be short). Don't take my console preferences personally because I know a lot of people who do.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:41 a.m. CST

    Uwe Bol could knock these out by Christmas

    by CTU Mole

    Get Ben Kingsley and the chick from T3 on the horn.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:41 a.m. CST

    Lol Mr_Sleep

    by MasterKenobi

    Your desciption of Jackson´s working style on Halo was spot on. Too much creative freedom for directors who can´t hold back, who must always overindulge is hurtful for the story. Like someone was saying here, he did quite good in LOTR when there were multiple story-threads, but he failed in Kong and will fail again if he doesn´t hire a good script writer. I haven´t seen Alex Garland´s script, I can only guess it was quite good, but not good enough for Jackson who probably will want more "drama"

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Pandamaster

    by MasterKenobi

    Agree that Xbox360 has more exlusive games coming out earlier than the PS3 exlusives. I´m thinking of Gears of war and Halo3, but also Lost Planet which looks quite good for xbox and Metal Gear 4 and Heavenly Sword for PS3. If PS3 comes out March were you live then you will have a chance to get Heavenly Sword. It´s supposed to ship then. I have nothing against Halo and Gears of war looks especially cool , but among all the next gen games I haven´t seen a game that looks as gorgeous as Heavenly Sword for the PS3. It´s also a game that won´t come to PC like many of the xbox games will do sooner or later.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:52 a.m. CST

    The phone call from PJ to Alex Garland

    by Mr_Sleep001

    Riiiing. PJ 'What the hell Alex! What the hell have you done to Halo?' AG 'I simply made it the fun sci-fi actioner it should be, but with great dialogue.' PJ'Alex who the hell told you you could have fun with this script? Who the hell told you that? And not ONE mention of a longing look at the horror before Master Chief? What the hell did I hire you for? More Drama damnit!' AG 'Is that wise Peter?' PJ 'You dare question MEEEE?' etc

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:54 a.m. CST

    it's a shame microsoft isn't the kind of company

    by OneintenMan

    with loads of money that could just finance the film itself... um...

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:04 a.m. CST

    I'm not too fussed about gears of war

    by pandamaster83

    It looks a lot like when duke nukem went all third person like syphon filter for the psone. I'm more interested in assassin's creed, bioshock, mass effect, alan wake etc, a few of which will also be on PS3. The reason I don't have a 360 now is because it took MS a whole year to deliver system-selling games (with the possible exception of oblivion). Heavenly sword looks good for its combat, but again, I'm not going to buy any system (even a Wii) until there's more than one game justifying the expense, and since MGS is still at least a year off, it could take PS3 as long as the Xbox 360 to start delivering the quality material.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:05 a.m. CST

    "Premliminary preproduction..."

    by 3 Bag Enema

    ...which is distinguishable from just plain preproduction how?

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:06 a.m. CST

    fuck I'm too late for a Uwe Bowel joke

    by StovetopStuffin'

    and yes, I spelled his name B-O-W-E-L. Wanna fight about it!?

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:13 a.m. CST

    --Off Topic-- Xo "TORN.net" man

    by GlamDaToeHammer

    Great to see you on the boards man! Before and while the LOTR came out I visited your site every day. Thanks for your work it's appreciated! I've been reading since two weeks after it's creation.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Xoanon

    by pandamaster83

    You also gave me years lots of delight with your onering.net, and I'm glad PJ recognises your services.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:16 a.m. CST

    So much so that I can't even write

    by pandamaster83

    Pish.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:18 a.m. CST

    PETE!!! Love ya, but NO SUPER LONG CLOSE UPS!!!

    by BirdMcMonster

    "A teary, forlorn Master Chief reflects for 6 minutes over a sweeping orchestral score......or Enya."

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:19 a.m. CST

    or

    by Westonian

    ben del meastro...or whoever that kid is that sang on lotr

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:21 a.m. CST

    Also, in response to the Halo shaped planet

    by pandamaster83

    Is that actually possible? I know it's dumb even debating it in the context of space soldiers killing aliens and hovering around, but how do atmospheres form (given that it probably isn't a "sphere") and how do orbits work etc? Just ignore me.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Ringb(w)earer9 TB Self-Destruction in...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    5...4...3...2...

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:22 a.m. CST

    OH WHY, WHY

    by godzillasushi

    I could care less as long as it gets made, and made well. And Fox and Universal couldnt put up 5 million? Seriously wtf, these are the people that make Xmen and The Mummy for tons of cash. Looks like we wont get Hellboy v Master Chief anytime soon :P

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:28 a.m. CST

    I guess Fox doesn't like making money or new franchises

    by zerogundamx

    Halo is going to be huge. They gutted X-Men, Star Wars is over, what big franchises do they have left in the pipeline? Boneheads.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:27 a.m. CST

    And it's starting to sound like...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    ...BringingSexyBack has been conditioned by the MSM and the fashion world's idea of feminine beauty. Either that or, he is afraid to admit that he REALLY LOVES ASIA ARGENTO!

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Pandamaster

    by Mr_Sleep001

    Well physicists theorise that there are donut (of the ring variety) universes so why not donut planets? Think of the orbit like the ship from 2001:Sace Odyssey, it's spin would create a centrifugal force pushing its inhabitents towards the outside of the ring. But I'm an English graduate, so I'll stop talking about physics and stuff

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Fox

    by GlamDaToeHammer

    They do have Indy 4 though...that is if it ever gets made while Harrison Ford can still walk unaided.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Mr_Sleep001

    by godzillasushi

    Yea that would make to much sense so just give up while you still can. Not that any of these folks would get the word 'fantasy' or 'made up'. UNICORNS ARE REAL, believe me now.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:39 a.m. CST

    Godzillasushi

    by Mr_Sleep001

    Yup giving up would be good. But this is Hollywood physics we're talking about...not the real stuff. How many arguments that's caused in my circle of friends, especially after the cars fell from the plane in 'Die Another Day'. I was winding up a mate, by saying it was possible a car could fall from thousands of feet and land in a rice paddy without exploding.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST

    VIdeo game movies

    by richier123

    When I think of universaly liked video game movies, Mortal Kombat (the original) is the only one that comes to mind. However, with the obscene popularity of Halo, and Peter Jacksons name attached to it, I think it will do incredibly well. However I also think that if it is not heavy on action, people arn't going to go back to see it a second time and it won't make as much. And as for that asshat that was promoting ps3 .... talk to me in 2 years when your arguement might JUST START to be valid, i'll stick with my 360 till then.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Why Microsoft needs studio money

    by stvnhthr

    Microsoft is not a movie studio, they don't have the connections or distribution to make and release a feature film. They are the big fish in their pond, but making movies is a whole different lake to swim in. For a studio to be involved they have to pony up some cash, otherwise Microsoft is taking all the risk and the studio is not financially involved so they have no real motivation to make something that is not going to lose money-they could just bleed Microsoft.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:47 a.m. CST

    stvnhthr

    by Mr_Sleep001

    That's true, but really, why wouldn't a studio invest in something that should be a dead cert?

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Hey c'mon

    by pandamaster83

    I was just throwing the concept out there. I'm able to suspend disbelief as well as anyone. As for Halo's success, I never make predictions and I never will (boom boom). Sorry.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Pandamaster

    by Mr_Sleep001

    I wasn't having a dig at you. I was having a knock at my own lack of knowledge about physics.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Not surprised really...

    by RenoNevada2000

    Two hundred million bucks is a HUGE chunk of change, even spread across two studios, to spend on a a movie in a genre (video game adaptations) that has not yet proved itself financially at the box office ONCE ever.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 9:58 a.m. CST

    I know you weren't

    by pandamaster83

    It was more a reply to Godzillasushi's post, but I know everyone's just kidding around.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:02 a.m. CST

    RenoNevada2000

    by Mr_Sleep001

    I think that's because directors tend to take whatever it was that made a game successful and leave it out of any film adaptation. People invest themselves in games just as much as readers invest in books, but as games are 'low art' its a given that liberties can be taken. Gamers go expecting something that represents what they're invested and think 'what the hell! Doom was nothing like this.' That's my theory at least.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:03 a.m. CST

    Thanks guys!

    by XoanonTORN

    Cheers!! <p> Michael Regina<br> Editor in Chief/Segment Producer<br> http://www.TheOneRing.net<br> http://www.KongisKing.net<br> http://www.TheOneLion.net<br>http://whatisthedavincicode.blogspot.com/

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:14 a.m. CST

    So we get Doom and Resident Evil's up the ass...

    by Batutta

    ...but no Peter Jackson produced Halo? Smart thinkin' studios.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:24 a.m. CST

    Kenobi...

    by NightArrows

    QUOTE: "The reason why it has it´s fans, is because it was the only good game on the old X-box" END QUOTE<p>Are you fucking serious? There were plenty of good games for the Xbox. Take your head out of your biased ass long enough to smell some clean air.<p>Yes, PS3 looks to have the edge, power-wise, on the 360, but I'm buying both so it's moot.<p>Halo is the most over-rated game ever BECAUSE that type of gameplay had been standard on the PC for quite some time, but it really hadn't been done to that level on a console. THAT is why.<p>Anyways, fuck the movie, and fuck Mr.-I-can't-edit-my-movies-down-all-slow-motion horseshit Jackson, while you're at it.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Yea guys im just kidding

    by godzillasushi

    no harm!!! :)

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    why not

    by purplemonkeydw

    just a giant budget red vs. blue? cheap, effective, funny. (not a real suggestion)

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    why not

    by purplemonkeydw

    just a giant budget red vs. blue? cheap, effective, funny. (not a real suggestion)

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Oh...

    by NightArrows

    Did you mean Only good Xbox ONLY title?<p>Whichever it was I still suggest a breath of clean air.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:50 a.m. CST

    I cannot wait for this movie!

    by ccchhhrrriiisssm

    HALO is the only reason that I purchased an X-Box! I am not much of a video game person, but HALO (and HALO 2) got me hooked! If the movie is HALF as good as the game -- it will be great!

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:57 a.m. CST

    Marathon should be a movie

    by Staldo

    They need it to set up backstory for Halo. Also the aliens who make sounds like braking tire screeches are funny.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 11:03 a.m. CST

    Gosh of War movie

    by cyberskunk

    The last news I found about that was over a year ago. I wonder what's up with that? http://tinyurl.com/7zlcs

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 11:27 a.m. CST

    RED VS BLUE would make more sense (and cents)

    by Harry Weinstein

    Even factoring upgrades to the graphical engine to make it watchable on a theatre-size screen into the budget, it would cost chump change to make and would be 100% sure to turn a profit, even after marketing costs, after not even one weekend in release, but ONE DAY in release. The kicker - it would also be better than any straight adaptation could ever hope for.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Well since theres never been a successful game movie...

    by godzillasushi

    dont you think that the chances one could finally happen are pretty good. Considering the talent behind this thing...plus count me as a fan of Tomb Raider because that one was pretty good.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Given Fox's track record of late

    by quadrupletree

    It's probably a good thing they're not involved.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Fox and Uni juggfuckled themselves!

    by mr. brownstone

    This actually gives me hope the approach being taken is too fresh and innovative for those lumbering dinosaurs to get behind.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Considering NBCUniversal is laying off people....

    by Uncapie

    ...and Ron Meyer and Stacey Snider have moved over to Paramount, sounds like trouble in River City.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Runners for best videogame of a movie?

    by pandamaster83

    My nomination would be Goldeneye. Runner for movie that fucked up a game most? Mine would be Super Mario Brothers. Damn that was a bad idea in the first place.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 12:03 p.m. CST

    fox and uni are smart to do this

    by yassoo

    jesus, you people are retards. who would have seen this movie? only those who played and bought the game. fans of real sci-fi wouldnt have seen it. Res evil kinda worked b/c people like horror movies. Tomb raider kinda worked b/c its an action adventure movie that drew some other quadrants (like females). Halo? only for the xbox geek crowd. if movies werent so $$$ maybe it would still get made. but when nothing is a guarantee anymore, studios think long and hard. the math just didnt make sense i guess. so lets stop bitching and moaning, and lets be realistic and stop cumming in our pants every time some property is bought and realize that this is a business (unfortunately).

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 12:05 p.m. CST

    To explicit for studios!

    by Evil Hobbit

    Didn't there was a mention in the PJ interview on AICN that the previs work done by weta thus far was extremely hardcore R-rated stuff. Perhaps Neill wants Halo to be the way it should be, which is hardcore R-rated, and the studio just doesn't want to put that out for they want a PG13 flick out of it. If so, thank god PJ's producing. They'll pull it of.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 12:06 p.m. CST

    Touchstone wood this still happens

    by DirkD13"

    i'm so sorry about that

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Game is dumb, movie will be dumb

    by Dannychico

    a $200 million dollar budget would be an enormous financial mistake

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 12:35 p.m. CST

    I don't get the love for Halo's single-played campaign

    by Lovecraftfan

    I enjoy it but I'll never really get serious worshipping it gets. I don't play multi-player.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 12:37 p.m. CST

    retards....they stay crispy in milk

    by Magnethead

    "who would have seen this movie? only those who played and bought the game." You do realize how many copies of this game and its sequel have sold? A fucking lot. and being that the game costs about 50 bucks i doubt aanother 8 on a movie ticket is going to hurt. so even if only the retards who play the game go see it its still going to make money. yeah, it's a movie based on a game, whos storyline is sort of based on ringworld. Most of the time, if i hear of a movie being made that is based on a game i think "WHY? Its only going to suck" And I make games for a living. Halo actually has a more involved storyline than most games, so if the movie looks decent I would go see it. but i guess time will tell.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 1:17 p.m. CST

    So how many units did Halo actually sell?

    by Bazka Berzerker

    I've checked around internet and it seems that Halo has so far sold around 6-7 million units worldwide, where as Halo 2 has sold around 7-8 million units. If we take the highest number - 8 - and we assume that every person who has bought the game will see the movie, we'll get less than 80 million worldwide. That doesn't like a lot for a 145 million film, especially since the studio has to spend another 50 million to marketing and then they need to give 10% of the gross to Microsoft. And the only video game movie ever to make more than 100 million was Tomb Raider. Doom made 55 million worlwide, despite the fact that it had 10 million players back in the day.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 1:17 p.m. CST

    the reason why fox and universal ditched it

    by McLuvin

    they're all a bunch of business suits who couldn't look past the track record for video game-turned-movies box office returns. street fighter, silent hill, resident evil, doom, all these movies underperfomed and they had less than 1/5 the projected budget that halo will have.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 1:23 p.m. CST

    zabbadoo

    by wash

    If by "smart" you mean "insane" and "dumber then Brent Ratner after a lobotomy".

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 2:08 p.m. CST

    That's great news. It means New Line will likely get it

    by Jopapa

    And I'd MUCH rather have New Line do it than the other two studios. New Line seems to be the only one that consistently gets shit right and lets the producer and director have near full control of the film.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 2:14 p.m. CST

    They should turn it over to Uwe Boll

    by Richard Cranium

    Now THERES a man who knows how to make a video game translate to the big screen...

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Oh by the way, most of you that dont like Halo

    by godzillasushi

    I bet you never played or finished the game, even if you said you have. Now we will get people that will be all like "Actually Sushi, I have beaten it" wellllll your probably lying. Some guy even says "I didnt like single player, never played multiplayer." Well wtf, thats why most people like it. Blah I hate Final Fantasy, each game is like reading a book that lets you gain stats. Now what people, flame me hard, thats the way I like it.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 2:24 p.m. CST

    errr.... glamda indy belongs to paramount

    by southafrican

    and actually fox does have two potentially huge franchises coming,(even though rothman sooo doesnt deserve this) in an interview with mtv james cameron's next two projects are two seperate planned trilogies; Avatar and battle angel alita. And i think the studios are being clever not jumping into this blindly, video game movies are not remotely proven money makers (and we are talking about a completely unproven director), and its not like jacksons directing, ooooh hes producing *pause while i undo my zip and jerk myself off pause*, for fucks sake george lucas produced howard the duck and willow, and steven spielburg has had his share of complete misfires. No, more sense is to give someone like Cameron 200+ million to make an science fiction epic, you know, someone with a track record so impressive its like money in the bank. Oh and most people i know hate video game movies (myself included) to quote bart simpson they have pretty much all managed to both suck and blow at the same time.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 2:41 p.m. CST

    I'm tired of the "video game movie" discussion

    by seanny_d

    The reason video game movies suck is because the people making them see them as video game movies. I don't think that making a video game movie would be any different than adapting a book or a remake or a comic. If they get good talent, they have a good script, and they take their time to make a good movie, then it doesn't fucking matter what the source material is. Every movie up to this point has been purely a cash-in. This one feels a little differently. So hopefully someone else picks it up and I can watch it summer 08.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 3:27 p.m. CST

    I'm actually going to finance it

    by WolfmanNards

    Get ready for cardboard monsters!

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 3:42 p.m. CST

    I thought it sould 33 mil

    by Phategod2

    I thought Halo 2 sold 33 million units not sure but i heard it sold that many in its first week out.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 3:47 p.m. CST

    I love how rabid Halo fan are around here

    by Lovecraftfan

    Did I say the single player sucks. Uhh no. I said I liked it, but I don't get what the rabid love is about. The story's fine I just don't so shockingly amazing.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Who says video game movies are crap?

    by wetzello

    I loved that Street Fighter adaptation with Jackie Chan in it...

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Universal and Fox generally suck at this anyway....

    by Posthumos1

    It would be in much better hands with New Line or even Warner Bros. I don't think Halo could be in better hands for production than PJ. The ONLY second choice that would be cool for an epic Sci Fi would be Ridley Scott; maybe James Cameron. James Cameron probably has half of the costumes needed anyway since the vast majority of the "regular" marines uniforms for Halo the game were a direct tribute to Cameron's Aliens movie. Halo can be a really different Game based movie in that, if handled properly it will be dark and heavy with the effects; not cartoony or stupid. I know they are going to go the PG-13 but I hope they ride a fine line near an R rating. And if they blow it by showing the Master Chiefs face I'll be pissed.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 4 p.m. CST

    godzillasushi

    by pandamaster83

    I don't like final fantasy either. Random battles with no real time control and cg movies. I like to push this fact to incite rage from fanboys.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 4:27 p.m. CST

    I knew...

    by rbatty024

    they should have given this project to Uwe Boll. Serves the studios right for not seeing his vision.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 4:44 p.m. CST

    retards....they STILL stay crispy in milk

    by Magnethead

    doesn't matter how many units halo sold. I guess my point should have been if the movie is actually good people will watch it. wether the source material is a video game...or say.. a ride at a theme park.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:01 p.m. CST

    I still have no hope or this.

    by alienindisguise

    And I enjoyed both games. While I'm sure it will be watchable, but they'll really have to something about Master Chief's personality...for me that was the weakest part of the game. The Dirty Harry attitude is SO played out!

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Halo would be the biggest film of the year?

    by Audets70

    What in the hell are some of you smoking? I want some!!!! NO WAY this would make over 60-70 million. That is why they backed out. WIth PJ in charge, it'd probably take 400 million to make. Name me one video game film that made hundreds of millions of dollars??? Just one!!! Halo is no different. College frat guys and high school gamers WOULD not make this a hit. Everyone else would ignore it. Trust me.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:18 p.m. CST

    To all you Uwe Boll hayters: HE IS A GREAT DIRECTOR!

    by Uncapie

    In another galaxy, but not this one.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Fuck Halo

    by Angry Mean Panda

    Most overrated game of the last decade. Furthermore, fuck it's fans.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:35 p.m. CST

    innovation and storytelling ?

    by Power_Girl

    The game like every other shooter is a rip on Aliens and starship Troopers.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Any company associated to Fox News leavin the project..

    by Kampbell-Kid

    ...is no real loss to me. Thats like Ann Coulter asking to be excused from your table when the collective innermonologue is "Thank god that crazy bitch is leaving!". Watch the next piece of news be Fox/Universal picked up the World of Warcraft film instead. lol

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Angry Mean Panda

    by rebel299

    amen. i don't understand the fucking insane love people have for this game and its sequel. i mean, its not a bad game by any means. its a pretty good FPS, but the adoration people bestow on it just perplexes me.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:22 p.m. CST

    Lets stop with the console fanboy-ism, Christ!

    by Novaman5000

    All the next gen systems are promising, but PS3 is going to have a rough time ahead of it. It's VERY expensive (though I'm hearing rumors of a price drop) and a YEAR behind xbox 360 in terms of getting onto the market. They also have to create an online service that is as comprehensive and pretty damn sweet as Live pretty much from SCRATCH. Also, fun fact, most systems launch with mediocre games. What did PS2 launch with? Summoner and Madden, to name a couple. I'll be honest, I just got a 360 and I love it. I plan on getting a PS3 next year, too. I have all the previous gen systems... I'm a pretty avid gamer. Like last generation, no one is going to "win" the next gen war. They will co-exist. Each with their own, unique titles, plus a bunch of common ones between them. Stop sucking sony's dick for a second, please, and recognize that.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 6:26 p.m. CST

    oh, and on topic.

    by Novaman5000

    They're insane if they don't think this movie will be a massive fucking hit. How well did Halo 2 do when it was released? It sold millions of copys in its first night. This movie has sure thing written all over it. And, if the quality is there, it could have staying power, too, plus attract non-gamers.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:04 p.m. CST

    If the film doesn't appeal to non-gamers...

    by rbatty024

    then it will do well opening weekend and then quickly drop off. Sure, Halo was a huge success, but that doesn't mean the movie is going to be.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 7:04 p.m. CST

    "with Fox fucking up the Star Wars franchise..."

    by PurityOfEssence

    In what way do you mean this? Oh and Whedon is overated. He's got tallent but the level of worship his fans heap upon him is well, annoying as fuck.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 8:14 p.m. CST

    Microsoft doesn't have the CONNECTIONS?

    by SnapT

    "Microsoft is not a movie studio, they don't have the connections or distribution to make and release a feature film." LOL... first off, that's stupid because all they need to do is give Peter Jackson the money and the movie gets made as good or better than if a "studio" was involved. Second, regarding distribution, all they have to do is say "uh, we got a HALO movie produced by Peter Jackson" and every theater owner in the world will line up to show up. Worst case scenario: they could buy a small but experienced film distribution company for relative chump change and have them release the movie and its sequels and whatever else Microsoft decides to make a movie out of. Even that would be cheaper than giving a cut to Fox or Universal, probably.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:31 p.m. CST

    "HEEEEY...WAIT A MINUTE!", said the Executives...

    by RetroActive

    when the script for "Aliens" showed up on their desks with a line through it and the word "HALO" scribbled in big, red marker right above it.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 10:34 p.m. CST

    Save time Quint!

    by RetroActive

    Just give us the news rather than explaining that you're going to miss your plane to prague because, blah, blah, blah...would've saved you five critical minutes, bro. You would've had time for coffee and everything! Remember for next time. Just the facts, man.

  • Oct. 20, 2006, 11:40 p.m. CST

    Halo is DOOMed

    by bender7

    After seeing the Doom movie I don't have much hope for Halo or any other video game movie

  • Oct. 21, 2006, midnight CST

    Considering what Bill Gates said when asked...

    by Johnno

    "What would you do if the Xbox 360 does as poorly as the first one?"<br><br> Bill Gates: "Doesn't matter. We'll just make another one!"<br><br> Yeah... that's how much money there is to blow for Xbox franchises, Microsoft's goal being to keep operating at a loss for several years until it completely wears out the competition or reaches a healthy spot... They could easily fund this movie from their own pockets and rake in the profit it's sure to make!

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 2:37 a.m. CST

    Active vs. Passive

    by JoeyGladstone

    No one ever mentions Halo's greatest asset-THE GAMEPLAY. movies don't frighten me and rarely create a sense of tension, but there were moments playing Halo when your amo's run low, your shield is drained and your health is depleted and your stalking around the library just anticipating one of the flood to jump out at you. It's genuinely intense. Even that doesn't compare to multiplayer(Halos greatest achievement) dropping somebody with a head shot from the sniper rifle, using the hand gun(1, 2 ,3 shots you're dead) I had a lot of fun playing those games. But how will any of that translate into a movie? Videogames are interactive and movies are passive. When you remove the interactivity all your left with are the images, characters and events -which in Halo's case aren't that special. The entire human side of the game is a blatant rip-off of "Aliens". Can you even look at the sargeant(black, moustached, chomping on a cigar) without thinking of Apone? Or how about the Flood parasite "face huggers". The Space marines right down to their armour are pretty derivative.The Halo universe is not epic. I've haven't read the books but accoring to the games there are about 8 species in the galaxy, 7 of them form the Covenant who don't even seem to have a homeworld other than High Charity from Halo 2. Compare this to the myriad supporting species in Star Wars or Star Trek that flesh out those universes.... I'm rooting for the film to kick ass, but how will a passive narrative capture the excitement,intensity and rivalry of even so much as playing slayer in "Hang 'em High", or "Blood Gulch". It won't....

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 3:27 a.m. CST

    So this is why studios suck ass

    by Jon E Cin

    Does Jackson have the power to do this on his own without studio backing? Can't he do a Lucas?? I'm sure someone out there wont mind investing money into this. This is not a normal video game adaption...this is HALO and will be an epic movie if done correctly.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 3:28 a.m. CST

    So this is why studios suck ass

    by Jon E Cin

    Does Jackson have the power to do this on his own without studio backing? Can't he do a Lucas?? I'm sure someone out there wont mind investing money into this. This is not a normal video game adaption...this is HALO and will be an epic movie if done correctly.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 3:28 a.m. CST

    So this is why studios suck ass

    by Jon E Cin

    Does Jackson have the power to do this on his own without studio backing? Can't he do a Lucas?? I'm sure someone out there wont mind investing money into this. This is not a normal video game adaption...this is HALO and will be an epic movie if done correctly.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 5:58 a.m. CST

    When I think about them making this movie.....

    by Doc_Strange

    just how much you think it's gonna cost? I'd say in upwards of 200 mill. You couldn't get the epic scale and large cast without ponying up that kind of change. The thing is Lucas predicted this would happen and I have to say that Fox and Universal are playing it safe because they don't want another Kong on their hands, especially since Jackson's film flopped. I don't know if Jackson has the chops to write a good original screenplay, he seems to do a lot better at adaptations, not good at adding his own flavor to it (Arwen with Frodo in Fellowship). Also the fact that the screenplay would have to be damn near impressive, so much, that it would need to play to a lot of people and not just fans of the game if it wanted to rake in the dough. Truthfully, I don't think the game was that great. It had some great moments but overall it was a lot of the same thing over and over. The question is, would I pay to see this movie? Not if someone with Michael Bay's skills (or lack of) directed it.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 7:44 a.m. CST

    Serenity bombed because no one cared......

    by lionbiu

    sorry metalwater, but the film was so overated, plus the "browncoats" were so annoying that it bombed. The film was just a average sci-fi movie that. Back on topic: The HALO games are cool, but this is generally due to the fantastic multi-player, the plot is generic and the chracters are all wafer-thin. If this film is lucky it could gross about $400 million worldwide...but even that would not make much profit for FOX and Universal...hollywood is a buisness not a charity and forking over $200 million to a unknown director who is making a film in a gnere which hardly succeeds...is totally stupid.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Mario and Luigi Superstar Saga in trouble

    by BannedOnTheRun

    John Leguizamo's on board, but Bob Hoskins is holding out for more money or a nude scene.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Maybe y'all need to take Mel Gibson's example...

    by Johnno

    If no studio backs this, then Pete or Microsoft will have to fund it themselves... Microsoft has enough money. If Pete were to do it with his own, then chances are he'll make sure he can't screw this up... and I say that from a good standpoint, not a 'dumbed for the masses' standpoint. Also in this age of 'Advent Children', worse comes to worse, just 3D animate it and release it on HD-DVD. But I believe Blu-Ray will win this one if any wins at all...

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 12:41 p.m. CST

    TO Vi and Master Kenobi - learn basic MATH

    by Rob4123

    Go to dictionary and look up "gross" and "net". You don't get a fim's profit from taking its gross revenues minus its production costs. You take net revenues (usually about 50% (the rest goes to distributors and movie chains)) and take out marketing costs (the next biggest cost after production). Using your numbers and doing some quick cocktail napkin math, Kong was indeed a net money wash before DVD - $550M gross (assume about $275M in net), minus at least $50M for worldwide marketing, minus production of $207M = @$20M in profit - that is a disaster as cheap movies like Click, Grudge, etc. make considerably more than that with much less effort and risk. This also doesn't account for any back-end deals with director, producers, actors, etc. that aren't included in production costs - so Jackson's back-end take alone could have wiped out any profit. Even with DVD sales, pay per view, television rights, etc. nobody would call Kong a success. Check their 10K report for specifics - if they don't specifically mention its profits, it was a loser.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST

    Video Game movies don't suck because of the material...

    by Optimus Murphy

    ...they suck because movie studios and directors stray from the material. Halo by any other name, without the video game roots, would be a blockbuster. Everyone bashing it would be "OMG I'm shooting a load in my pants". Resident Evil and Doom, would probably bring the same reaction. The problem is all the things that made Resident Evil and Doom great (like everything) were completely ignored in the films, traded for typical Hollywood predictability and lame-osity.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 5:24 p.m. CST

    XBox Sucked!!

    by Stumanji

    ...if you ignored Halo, Halo 2, Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, Splinter Cell, Ninja Gaiden, Psychonauts, Jade Empire, Crimson Skies, Project Gotham Racing, MechAssault, Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath, Beyond Good & Evil, and so on...

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 7:58 p.m. CST

    I Smell a Bomb

    by Shub-Wankalot

    Yes, keep clear, folks, this alleged movie has the stink of a bomb...oh, I'm sure the raving fans will flock to it, like randy lemmings, but the general public will have better discretion and ignore this potential eyesore. Being atop a high horse can cause nosebleeds, blurry vision, and faulty judgement...Jackson needs to come back to Earth.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 11:03 p.m. CST

    RE: Serenity Talk

    by HaveCameraWillTravel

    Booking the cast or Wheldon on talk shows would not have helped box office draw. If you haven't seen "Firefly" the movie seems a bunch of rubbish. Even worse because of this fact, it turns you off of EVER wanting to see "Firefly" because the movie "Serenity" was such a muddle and such a bore to the non-fan. "Serenity" was a vanity project made for the small group of "Firefly" fans...otherwise it would have had more draw to people who had never heard of "Firefly" who approached the movie and gave it a try. Booking the cast on a talk show would not have helped in the slightest because of what I have just mentioned and using that as an excuse for low attendance/box office take is laughable.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Jackson and WETA need to jump ship right now

    by performingmonkey

    Hell, Peter Jackson has a lot of other stuff he should be concentrating on. Sure, he had enthusiasm for this project and all the stuff about blurring the lines between games and movies, but personally I feel NO MATTER WHAT a Halo movie will be a lost cause - NO MATTER WHAT. Studios just think game/movie/game/movie/game/movie and treat it like shit. If the lord God himself was attached to the project it would still be treated like a piece of shit by the studios due to it being a videogame movie. They think their audience is 10-year-olds sat in front of their PS2's trying to masturbate but failing so they post on here and game forums like fucktards whining about a Halo movie and Halo 3 and how they rule at GTA and that shit 50 Cent game. Grow up and make a real movie like Avatar. Listen...we got no choice we have to live together, or we're gonna die hard alone, you got that. You're gonna die HARD because your so busy playing Halo you don't have a free hand to shake the veiny love tree, or Samuel L. as the sidekick from Harlem to do it for you. Not even Samwise Gamgee as played by Sean Astin in Peter's trilogy is going to be there to jerk you the frak off. Roslin's gonna flush you out the airlock like she should have that baby Hera, then there wouldn't be a plotline for season 3 involving a Cylon/human hybrid, and you wouldn't be crying like a baby because Halo 3 isn't out yet, and no woman is ever gonna touch your penis. And THAT'S why the studios have pulled out. YOU'RE the reason they've pulled out.

  • Oct. 21, 2006, 11:21 p.m. CST

    HALO = The most overrated video game in history!!!!!!!!

    by Orionsangels

    It's a FPS people, nothing more! WTF?, did bill gates inject gamers with a serum that made them think it was more than just a game where you around shooting enemies over and over again. Haha!

  • Oct. 22, 2006, 2:17 a.m. CST

    Serenity Stunk! That's why it failed.

    by RetroActive

    Remember The Matrix? At the time of its release, Keanu was a has been, five years removed from the success of Speed, and I don't recall him making the talk show circuit either...unless you count "Dogstar"...his lame band. And it had zero publicity. I saw it because a friend told me it was pretty cool. Look, Metal Water, we appreciate your passion for the subject matter, but it's like "Snakes on a Plane"...the "geek love" only translates to about $10.2 mil at the box office. That movie alone is proof enough that whether or not you consider yourself "in the know" when it comes to quality releases...with or without talk show support, You just can't get past, "Hey did you see, Serenity/SoaP?"..."Yeah, it sucked". Word of mouth speaks volumes. And people don't ask geeks for opinions. So even if your review was shouted from the rooftops...it's the equivalent of Steve Urkel asking Giselle Bunchen on a date. 100 out of 100 times, the answer will be no...or..."I'm sorry, were you speaking to me?" People don't ask a geek's opinion...unless, of course, you're the IT guy in the office. But the only opinion the mainstream's interested in then is how to get their computer from crashing. Serenity sucked. Sorry.

  • Oct. 22, 2006, 2:22 a.m. CST

    BTW...

    by RetroActive

    Please don't misinterpret my use of "quality releases" and "SoaP" in the same paragraph as any type of an endorsement for that crapfest. Snakes sucked. And I can say that with an easy confidence having never seen the finished product.

  • Oct. 22, 2006, 8:44 a.m. CST

    I can't say I blame them - MS with creative control

    by minderbinder

    While I think it's generally good for the creators to maintain creative control, if they have too much power, you can end up with indulgent projects that spiral out of control and go way over budget. I can just picture the discussions where Bungie insisted that the main character never show his face, and things like wanting to use O'Donnell for the score instead of a real composer.

  • Oct. 22, 2006, 9:58 a.m. CST

    Games simply don't adapt well to screen

    by Bazka Berzerker

    Games are cool and fun because they are interactive. And movies are not interactive. Gameplay is one of the most crucial elements in any game, and you can't repeat that on film. A lot of people have bitched that Doom failed commercially because it wasn't loyal to the game. Well, if it would have been loyal, it would have been a movie about a generic, characterless space marine running back and forth dark corridors for two hours, shooting everything in sight. That's what the game was, and it was a fun game, but a movie like that would simply fucking SUCK. Halo's problem is that while unliked Doom it actually does have a story, it doesn't have a main character. Master Chief is an extrmelely characterless collection of every tough cliche out there. He would suck as a movie character, he has nothing to relate to. He works on a game, because the PLAYER is him, we project our own personality to him. But you can't do that on a movie. The only games I've ever played that actually had solid stories with solid characters were those old school point-and-click adventure games from the 90's. And maybe possible a couple of RPG's, althought there are too long, fragmented and convoluted to work on film without heavy cutting. And like I said earlier on, Halo 2 has sold only 7-8 million copies, which hardly means that it has a massive fanbase.

  • Oct. 22, 2006, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Alright alright, whatever... Forget Halo, Give me EVA!!

    by Johnno

    WETA And Jackson should get to work on that and get that Neill guy to direct or someone good and more experienced.... Neon Genesis Evangelion bitches!!! Get crackin on that!

  • Oct. 22, 2006, 2:29 p.m. CST

    ^ Should be "someone else that's known to be good"

    by Johnno

    Though I'd be intrigued to see how he'd do it... I bet he'd even keep much of the Japanese ethnicity...

  • Oct. 22, 2006, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Who gives a fuck but the fanboys?

    by samuraidino

    The halo movie was gonna end up as one big fuck up.For starters theyr adapting an overated game which has a completely one dimensional character with about as much personality as a shovel.Secondly the story is completely unoriginal and cliched.Thirdly,why the fuck is halo populer?MULTIPLAYER!So if they were following why people play halo wouldnt we get,Halo:Slayer The Movie?

  • Oct. 22, 2006, 7:31 p.m. CST

    This "Videogames can't be adapted" is TIRED.

    by Novaman5000

    It might work if you were making a Madden movie, but for most games, story and style are THE biggest parts. You capture them on film well, you've successfully adapted a game. Sure, Dig Dug might not be a good movie, but Halo? Of course it could be. Master Chief is cliched, fine, but a movie could fix that, easily. We already know the script would focus on the whole Spartan program, something we never get in the games. Already he has more depth. It's lazy to just shrug off videogames as impossible to adapt.

  • Oct. 22, 2006, 7:39 p.m. CST

    It doesn't have a massive fanbase???

    by Novaman5000

    Halo 2 is one of the most successful games of all times, hands down. The thing made freakin 1.5 million preorders! 5 million units sold in less than a month! The release made the news, something no other game's release has done, as far as I can remember. Think about it this way, Berzerker, you say it topped 8 million copies, right? That's 8 million people willing to spend 50 dollars (60 for the LE) on this thing. Now lets assume, the lower the price gets, the more people would be willing to spring for it. How many more people will buy a 10 dollar movie ticket for it's adaptation as a film? Even if only people who bought the game saw the movie, you're looking at 70 million in ticket sales (dropping 10 million because i doubt every person who bought the game would go on that reason alone). And how many fans of the game simply don't have xbox? How many "guests" do you see while playing live? Plus, look at the name attached. How many people like PJ's stuff? A ton. Then, factor in the fact that this thing could be an amazing, somewhat original, sci-fi epic, and with a great trailer, you suddenly have anticipation from people who simply think it looks cool but don't know anything about the games. For example, my dad would probably see the halo movie, but he's never touched the games, nor does he care to. If the quality is behind this thing, it stands to be a blockbuster, no doubt about it. As for Doom, Doom looked shitty, didn't have well known people behind it (save for the Rock), and was ultimately a shite movie that still made 55 million bucks in BO alone. There is no doubt that this thing would be fucking massive.

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 4:33 a.m. CST

    NOVAMAN, I'm not really following your logic

    by Bazka Berzerker

    70 million worldwide for a 145 million investment doesn't sound too good from studio's point of view. You have to remember that a 145 million movie has at least 55 million for marketing and studio gets only 50% of the money, so the breaking point is 400 MILLION. And then Microsoft takes 10%, which makes it even harder for the studio to make profit. Film is business, not charity - Especially on this budget level. And while PJ has a fanbase and can deliver huge hit movies, he is NOT directing this. If he were directing it, the studios would still backing the film. They have faith in PJ, as do I, but much less so for a debutant director who has done only commercials and a couple of interesting short movies, none of which prove for sure that he can tackle a feature. And sure, a lot of people who have played the game haven't bough it. But if they are not willing to pay 30$ (The prize was lowered pretty fast, I recall 2 months after the release) for a game, why would they pay 10$ to see the movie? And sure, if the film is great and has great marketing, it will make big bucks. But you can say that for any film, even if it's not adapted from Halo the game. So that's a non-argument. I'm not saying that the movie couldn't be a hit, I'm just saying that there is no more reason to expect it to be a hit than any other upcoming event film. When studios pay 200 million for budget and marketing, they want a sure thing, not something that might become a hit, or might just as well not. BTW, Halo isn't even close to being the biggest game of all time. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas for example had sold 12 million by April 2005 (Halo 2 had sold 6.5 million at that point). Need For Speed Underground sold 8,4 million. - Just to name a couple of recent names that were released at the same time as Halo 2.

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 4:35 a.m. CST

    Novaman, I don't follow your logic.

    by Bazka Berzerker

    70 million worldwide for a 145 million investment doesn't sound too good from studio's point of view. You have to remember that a 145 million movie has at least 55 million for marketing and studio gets only 50% of the money, so the breaking point is 400 MILLION. And then Microsoft takes 10%, which makes it even harder for the studio to make profit. Film is business, not charity - Especially on this budget level. And while PJ has a fanbase and can deliver huge hit movies, he is NOT directing this. If he were directing it, the studios would still backing the film. They have faith in PJ, as do I, but much less so for a debutant director who has done only commercials and a couple of interesting short movies, none of which prove for sure that he can tackle a feature. And sure, a lot of people who have played the game haven't bough it. But if they are not willing to pay 30$ (The prize was lowered pretty fast, I recall 2 months after the release) for a game, why would they pay 10$ to see the movie? And sure, if the film is great and has great marketing, it will make big bucks. But you can say that for any film, even if it's not adapted from Halo the game. So that's a non-argument. I'm not saying that the movie couldn't be a hit, I'm just saying that there is no more reason to expect it to be a hit than any other upcoming event film. When studios pay 200 million for budget and marketing, they want a sure thing, not something that might become a hit, or might just as well not. BTW, Halo isn't even close to being the biggest game of all time. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas for example had sold 12 million by April 2005 (Halo 2 had sold 6.5 million at that point). Need For Speed Underground sold 8,4 million. - Just to name a couple of recent names that were released at the same time as Halo 2.

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 4:42 a.m. CST

    Novaman, I don't follow your logic.

    by Bazka Berzerker

    70 million worldwide for a 145 million investment doesn't sound too good from studio's point of view. You have to remember that a 145 million movie has at least 55 million for marketing and studio gets only 50% of the money, so the breaking point is 400 MILLION. And then Microsoft takes 10%, which makes it even harder for the studio to make profit. Film is business, not charity - Especially on this budget level. And while PJ has a fanbase and can deliver huge hit movies, he is NOT directing this. If he were directing it, the studios would still backing the film. They have faith in PJ, as do I, but much less so for a debutant director who has done only commercials and a couple of interesting short movies, none of which prove for sure that he can tackle a feature. And sure, a lot of people who have played the game haven't bough it. But if they are not willing to pay 30$ (The prize was lowered pretty fast, I recall 2 months after the release) for a game, why would they pay 10$ to see the movie? And sure, if the film is great and has great marketing, it will make big bucks. But you can say that for any film, even if it's not adapted from Halo the game. So that's a non-argument. I'm not saying that the movie couldn't be a hit, I'm just saying that there is no more reason to expect it to be a hit than any other upcoming event film. When studios pay 200 million for budget and marketing, they want a sure thing, not something that might become a hit, or might just as well not. BTW, Halo isn't even close to being the biggest game of all time. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas for example had sold 12 million by April 2005 (Halo 2 had sold 6.5 million at that point). Need For Speed Underground sold 8,4 million. - Just to name a couple of recent names that were released at the same time as Halo 2.

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 4:43 a.m. CST

    Novaman, I don't follow your logic.

    by Bazka Berzerker

    70 million worldwide for a 145 million investment doesn't sound too good from studio's point of view. You have to remember that a 145 million movie has at least 55 million for marketing and studio gets only 50% of the money, so the breaking point is 400 MILLION. And then Microsoft takes 10%, which makes it even harder for the studio to make profit. Film is business, not charity - Especially on this budget level. And while PJ has a fanbase and can deliver huge hit movies, he is NOT directing this. If he were directing it, the studios would still backing the film. They have faith in PJ, as do I, but much less so for a debutant director who has done only commercials and a couple of interesting short movies, none of which prove for sure that he can tackle a feature. And sure, a lot of people who have played the game haven't bough it. But if they are not willing to pay 30$ (The prize was lowered pretty fast, I recall 2 months after the release) for a game, why would they pay 10$ to see the movie? And sure, if the film is great and has great marketing, it will make big bucks. But you can say that for any film, even if it's not adapted from Halo the game. So that's a non-argument. I'm not saying that the movie couldn't be a hit, I'm just saying that there is no more reason to expect it to be a hit than any other upcoming event film. When studios pay 200 million for budget and marketing, they want a sure thing, not something that might become a hit, or might just as well not. BTW, Halo isn't even close to being the biggest game of all time. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas for example had sold 12 million by April 2005 (Halo 2 had sold 6.5 million at that point). Need For Speed Underground sold 8,4 million. - Just to name a couple of recent names that were released at the same time as Halo 2.

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 4:47 a.m. CST

    Novaman, I don't follow your logic.

    by Bazka Berzerker

    70 million worldwide for a 145 million investment doesn't sound too good from studio's point of view. You have to remember that a 145 million movie has at least 55 million for marketing and studio gets only 50% of the money, so the breaking point is 400 MILLION. And then Microsoft takes 10%, which makes it even harder for the studio to make profit. Film is business, not charity - Especially on this budget level. And while PJ has a fanbase and can deliver huge hit movies, he is NOT directing this. If he were directing it, the studios would still backing the film. They have faith in PJ, as do I, but much less so for a debutant director who has done only commercials and a couple of interesting short movies, none of which prove for sure that he can tackle a feature. And sure, a lot of people who have played the game haven't bough it. But if they are not willing to pay 30$ (The prize was lowered pretty fast, I recall 2 months after the release) for a game, why would they pay 10$ to see the movie? And sure, if the film is great and has great marketing, it will make big bucks. But you can say that for any film, even if it's not adapted from Halo the game. So that's a non-argument. I'm not saying that the movie couldn't be a hit, I'm just saying that there is no more reason to expect it to be a hit than any other upcoming event film. When studios pay 200 million for budget and marketing, they want a sure thing, not something that might become a hit, or might just as well not. BTW, Halo isn't even close to being the biggest game of all time. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas for example had sold 12 million by April 2005 (Halo 2 had sold 6.5 million at that point). Need For Speed Underground sold 8,4 million. - Just to name a couple of recent names that were released at the same time as Halo 2.

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 4:46 a.m. CST

    How can a first person shoot-em up make a good movie?

    by Giant Ape Balls

    It can't.

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 4:51 a.m. CST

    Novaman, I don't follow your logic.

    by Bazka Berzerker

    70 million worldwide for a 145 million investment doesn't sound too good from studio's point of view. You have to remember that a 145 million movie has at least 55 million for marketing and studio gets only 50% of the money, so the breaking point is 400 MILLION. And then Microsoft takes 10%, which makes it even harder for the studio to make profit. Film is business, not charity - Especially on this budget level. And while PJ has a fanbase and can deliver huge hit movies, he is NOT directing this. If he were directing it, the studios would still backing the film. They have faith in PJ, as do I, but much less so for a debutant director who has done only commercials and a couple of interesting short movies, none of which prove for sure that he can tackle a feature. And sure, a lot of people who have played the game haven't bough it. But if they are not willing to pay 30$ (The prize was lowered pretty fast, I recall 2 months after the release) for a game, why would they pay 10$ to see the movie? And sure, if the film is great and has great marketing, it will make big bucks. But you can say that for any film, even if it's not adapted from Halo the game. So that's a non-argument. I'm not saying that the movie couldn't be a hit, I'm just saying that there is no more reason to expect it to be a hit than any other upcoming event film. When studios pay 200 million for budget and marketing, they want a sure thing, not something that might become a hit, or might just as well not. BTW, Halo isn't even close to being the biggest game of all time. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas for example had sold 12 million by April 2005 (Halo 2 had sold 6.5 million at that point). Need For Speed Underground sold 8,4 million. - Just to name a couple of recent names that were released at the same time as Halo 2.

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 6:03 a.m. CST

    Hands up anyone who wants to be a Hollywood exec?

    by scrumdiddly

    Easiest fucking job in the world. You don't even have to do it right!

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Was on my "must-see" list, next to Batman Begins sequel

    by JDanielP

    Hollywood. Dumbasses. "HALO" is going to break the mold of movies which are based on video game material. It WILL elevate the status of what such films can be. At least, that's what I expect from the talented people behind the scenes. And Microsoft should just handle the financing... though nobody hides profit quite like Hollywood. This is one of the few projects that I'm excited enough about seeing that I will even go to the theatre to see. And if it proves me right, I'll buy it on dvd. Is it any wonder that Hollywood is having so much trouble getting people to the theatre??? I figured that this new director of "HALO" could possibly be Hollywood's next HUGE talent, ...a raw talent that has been missing since the early years of Spielberg and Cameron. RDJ as Tony Stark and now this. --Eat it, Hollywwod.

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Hollywood stupidity. Let's hope the REAL talent stays.

    by JDanielP

    "HALO" was one of the few movies that I was really looking forward to... (along with anything James Cameron makes). "IRON-MAN" was on that list... until RDJ somehow got the role of Tony Stark. Hollywood will continue to suffer at the theatre until they pull their collective heads out of their asses. "HALO" has the potential to skyrocket the (low)bar on video game material being brought to cinematic life. And this new director has so much promise... that he just might be the greatest new directing talent since Spielberg and Cameron. --Hollywood can be so dumb. They finally get GREAT source material from video games... plus a producer like Peter Jackson on board, along with inspired talent in the director's chair. --This reminds me of how Ridley Scott and James Cameron were refused work on a new ALIEN flick, in favor of an "ALIEN VS. PREDATOR" teenage-targeted one. Yeah, I watched the disappointing "AVP" over at a friend's house... because I sure as hell wasn't going to PAY to see it. It never got a cent from me. And it never will. Bring on some worthy material with talent and a real budget. Otherwise, I'll pass on this uninspired and passive entertainment that is film... and favor the interactive entertainment of video games. --Is it any wonder that video games are kicking Hollywood's ass? Allow me to answer that. No, it isn't.

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Video games divided by feature films = suckage

    by vargman

    Hollywood has simply run out of ideas when they have to make a feature film based off video games. This MUST STOP!!

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 1:52 p.m. CST

    I can actually see why they'd bail.

    by Childe Roland

    Look at it from the perspective of one of the many people on the planet who've never played HALO and who really have no idea what distinguishes it from any of the other video game-to-movie adaptations of the last ten years. To the letter, those have all sucked (although I still hold out hope for a bitchin' Director's Cut of Silent Hill some day). Now Microsoft is asking for $5 mil up front to make abother one. The better question from that perspective is: "Wow? How the happy fuck did we get this far along in the process without second guessing ourselves?" If Jackson's truly passionate about it, he'll get it done and it may well be more entertaining than just running around and shooting shit (which, don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed in all its iterations). The key here is to hook a wider audience than the existing fans of the game, and if Jackson and Microsoft can't even hook a trigger happy, coked up studio exec on the concept, then their pitch needs work. I'd like them to have that nailed down before they start on an actual script (but you can't lose the talking pie...it's the heart of the picture).

  • Oct. 23, 2006, 2 p.m. CST

    And Novaman, I also don't follow your logic...

    by Childe Roland

    ...but don't feel quite as strongly about it as our Berzerker friend (My love for you is ticking clock...BERZERKER!). You can't just assume that more people will be interested in the concept of HALO at a lower ticket price and be eager to experience an adaptation of an experience from an entirely different medium. The first thing people are going to do when their friends say "Hey, what's this HALO movie about?" is check online to see what the backstory is. The first thing they're going to find is that it's based on a video game. That's going to tune a helluva lot of folks out (most of the people who wanted to experience HALO as a video game have by now, the rest probably weren't all that interested). Even folks who might be interested in the backstory (and there's potential there, if treated right) will have to overcome the inherent bias against videogame movies (and most of the people who would be intrigued by the premise know exactly what that bias is and the legitimate track record that led to it), so that's a pretty big fucking hurdle. Jackson would need to bring his A+ game (especially after the disappointingly self-indulgent Kong) and, really, ties to the video game would have to be minimalized in the marketing (because, face it, HALO fans are going to see it regardless...they're pre-sold on the idea). But this movie is by no stretch of the imagination a "sure thing" for anyone. Especially in the post Superman Returns world.