Cool 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.
-
+ Expand All
-
Or take over Transformers.
-
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.
-
The omen sequel, fantastic four and doom but draw the line at Halo? Good move
-
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.
-
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
-
but "panning" works OK
-
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.
-
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?
-
Time to step up and make a couple hundred million
-
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.
-
...these studios are dick heads. Jesus, I would put money up for this film... if I knew how to!
-
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.
-
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!
-
I mean, FOX won't produce it! That's good! Right now, Fox is kinda evil!
-
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."
-
Fox and Universal are "Fucktarded"? C'mon, it's so much more fun to put the two together!!!
-
I JUS CANT DO IT CAP'N! I DUN HAVE DA POWA... to make a movie that isn't business oriented. :(
-
I'm assuming it will be a sack of shit like all the other game adaptations.
-
...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!'
-
...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.
-
..I quite enjoyed it, but Tom Cruise sabotaged it with all his zaniness.
-
Well, it's fine, they'll regret it later. Tom Rothman doesn't deserve this film anyway.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
...they'd give the red v blue guys a couple hundred million and let them go nuts with it
-
I stopped reading your post after the second double-exclamation point.
-
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 -
thank god they're not involved anymore. bunch of fucks.
-
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.
-
A chance! The new studio might boot Blomkamp off - have you seen Alive in Jo'Burg? Sheesh.
-
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'
-
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.
-
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
-
It's a HALO movie. And Microsoft has billions of dollars. I don't get it.
-
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.
-
Mind you I'm not privy to much of the financial side of things. I am sure PJ can secure financing for this.
Michael Regina
Editor in Chief/Segment Producer
http://www.TheOneRing.net
http://www.KongisKing.net
http://www.TheOneLion.net
http://whatisthedavincicode.blogspot.com/ -
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. -
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.
-
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?
-
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!'
-
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.
Michael Regina
Editor in Chief/Segment Producer
http://www.TheOneRing.net
http://www.KongisKing.net
http://www.TheOneLion.net
http://whatisthedavincicode.blogspot.com/
-
check here for box office details. www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2005
-
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."
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Get Ben Kingsley and the chick from T3 on the horn.
-
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" -
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.
-
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
-
with loads of money that could just finance the film itself... um...
-
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.
-
...which is distinguishable from just plain preproduction how?
-
and yes, I spelled his name B-O-W-E-L. Wanna fight about it!?
-
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.
-
You also gave me years lots of delight with your onering.net, and I'm glad PJ recognises your services.
-
Pish.
-
"A teary, forlorn Master Chief reflects for 6 minutes over a sweeping orchestral score......or Enya."
-
ben del meastro...or whoever that kid is that sang on lotr
-
5...4...3...2...
-
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.
-
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
-
...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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
They do have Indy 4 though...that is if it ever gets made while Harrison Ford can still walk unaided.
-
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.
-
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. -
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.
-
That's true, but really, why wouldn't a studio invest in something that should be a dead cert?
-
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.
-
I wasn't having a dig at you. I was having a knock at my own lack of knowledge about physics.
-
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.
-
It was more a reply to Godzillasushi's post, but I know everyone's just kidding around.
-
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.
-
Cheers!!
Michael Regina
Editor in Chief/Segment Producer
http://www.TheOneRing.net
http://www.KongisKing.net
http://www.TheOneLion.nethttp://whatisthedavincicode.blogspot.com/
-
...but no Peter Jackson produced Halo? Smart thinkin' studios.
-
QUOTE: "The reason why it has it´s fans, is because it was the only good game on the old X-box" END QUOTEAre 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.Yes, PS3 looks to have the edge, power-wise, on the 360, but I'm buying both so it's moot.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.Anyways, fuck the movie, and fuck Mr.-I-can't-edit-my-movies-down-all-slow-motion horseshit Jackson, while you're at it.
-
no harm!!! :)
-
just a giant budget red vs. blue? cheap, effective, funny. (not a real suggestion)
-
just a giant budget red vs. blue? cheap, effective, funny. (not a real suggestion)
-
Did you mean Only good Xbox ONLY title?Whichever it was I still suggest a breath of clean air.
-
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!
-
They need it to set up backstory for Halo. Also the aliens who make sounds like braking tire screeches are funny.
-
The last news I found about that was over a year ago. I wonder what's up with that?
http://tinyurl.com/7zlcs -
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.
-
It's probably a good thing they're not involved.
-
Oct 20, 2006 11:41:08 AM CDT
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.
-
This actually gives me hope the approach being taken is too fresh and innovative for those lumbering dinosaurs to get behind.
-
...and Ron Meyer and Stacey Snider have moved over to Paramount, sounds like trouble in River City.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
i'm so sorry about that
-
a $200 million dollar budget would be an enormous financial mistake
-
I enjoy it but I'll never really get serious worshipping it gets. I don't play multi-player.
-
"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. -
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.
-
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.
-
If by "smart" you mean "insane" and "dumber then Brent Ratner after a lobotomy".
-
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.
-
Now THERES a man who knows how to make a video game translate to the big screen...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Get ready for cardboard monsters!
-
I thought Halo 2 sold 33 million units not sure but i heard it sold that many in its first week out.
-
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.
-
I loved that Street Fighter adaptation with Jackie Chan in it...
-
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.
-
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.
-
they should have given this project to Uwe Boll. Serves the studios right for not seeing his vision.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
In another galaxy, but not this one.
-
Most overrated game of the last decade. Furthermore, fuck it's fans.
-
The game like every other shooter is a rip on Aliens and starship Troopers.
-
...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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Damn you Michael Bay
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
After seeing the Doom movie I don't have much hope for Halo or any other video game movie
-
"What would you do if the Xbox 360 does as poorly as the first one?"
Bill Gates: "Doesn't matter. We'll just make another one!"
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! -
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.... -
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. -
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. -
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. -
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.
-
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. -
John Leguizamo's on board, but Bob Hoskins is holding out for more money or a nude scene.
-
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...
-
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 2:33:02 PM CDT
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.
-
...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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 11:21:52 PM CDT
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
Though I'd be intrigued to see how he'd do it... I bet he'd even keep much of the Japanese ethnicity...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 4:46:38 AM CDT
How can a first person shoot-em up make a good movie?
by giant ape balls
It can't.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Easiest fucking job in the world. You don't even have to do it right!
-
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.
-
"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.
-
Hollywood has simply run out of ideas when they have to make a feature film based off video games. This MUST STOP!!
-
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).
-
...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.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts