Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Bad News. HALO a No-Go... aka Why are the studios retarded?

First by Hyperimaginative	Oct 30th, 2006 11:27:27 PM
Morons. Why can't Hollywood get their heads out of their asses?
FUCK by Trancer	Oct 30th, 2006 11:27:56 PM
That sucks. 3rd?
that's sad.. by filmicdrummer17	Oct 30th, 2006 11:28:19 PM
but you've got to give Jackson and co. credit for actually trying to keep their promise to the fans. I'd rather wait for it then have to see a rushed piece of vomit.
Ooh, second, even by Trancer	Oct 30th, 2006 11:29:19 PM
How'd that happen?
Movies + Video games = Bad by Ashok0	Oct 30th, 2006 11:30:49 PM
And idiots were swearing "Silent Hill" would redefine modern cinema.
This could have been bigger than ... by darthuser	Oct 30th, 2006 11:30:53 PM
... the FINAL FANTASY and SUPER MARIO BROS. movies combined!!
SUCKS! by jackinitraw	Oct 30th, 2006 11:31:22 PM
Now we'll instead get 50 more bags of shit starring Reese Witherspoon, Lindsay Lohan, and written by Paul Haggis. I think it's time that people with brains seceded from the normals and started a new planet.
Say wha...? by Ribbons	Oct 30th, 2006 11:38:15 PM
Wow. I can honestly say that I did not see this coming. Well, good luck to WETA and Blomkamp on finding a backer sometime soon.
thank gawd by Reilly	Oct 30th, 2006 11:38:57 PM
Actually, the story isnt that bad, i just hate how overhype that game has become
i'd rather see a zelda movie than HALO by slder78	Oct 30th, 2006 11:39:16 PM
HALO is cool and all, but I just don't know how or if you can get a compelling narrative out of the game.
Happy Birthday, PJ by The Pusher	Oct 30th, 2006 11:39:47 PM
All your producing work just went down the drain.
something i don't understand... by KyleKrane	Oct 30th, 2006 11:43:48 PM
... why is financing a problem? why can't microsoft independently produce this themselves? and note to fox and universal... are you guys scared of making money or something?
Bad News? by Bungion Boy	Oct 30th, 2006 11:45:31 PM
Forgive me but does anyone remember DOOM from last year? I'm not sure if first person shooters can make good movies. The Peter Jackson involvement was an interesting touch, but I couldn't get excited until I heard a premise.
it's been coming for a few weeks now... by mattyholmes	Oct 30th, 2006 11:48:05 PM
RIP Halo the Movie www.obsessedwithfilm.com
I'd be completely on board... by filmicdrummer17	Oct 30th, 2006 11:48:28 PM
with whoever suggested a Zelda movie, if it weren't that so many things have cribbed from it in the last several years, and it itself cribbed from so many classic stories (Lord of the Rings, anyone?) that it would be met with a chorus of "so what?"s.
Fucking Film Companies . . . by PMonkeyReclaimed	Oct 30th, 2006 11:50:40 PM
I absolutely HATE what Hollywood has become. I mean, it's always been about money to film execs and the companies, but to shut down or drop people as talented as Peter Jackson and Co. just because they won't compromise and make a shitty movie is just plain retarded. A big FUCK YOU to Fox, you're shit anyway. I know you guys only think in $ symbols, so I'll try to make this simple. This was the greatest investment you could have possibly made. I'll show you: Best selling game + unbelievably large fan base x Peter Jackson ^(Weta power) = You're a bunch of souless money grubbing bitchfists!
the real reason HALO is postponed by dragon-lord	Oct 30th, 2006 11:50:42 PM
I'm sure the director will move on to something smaller, get his feet wet a little and get some experience under his belt. Once he proves himself there, they'll come back to the table for Halo. He's just way too inexperienced to be handed a project of this scale and everyone knows it.
Ashoko said it best by Jor-El23	Oct 30th, 2006 11:51:23 PM
video games don't make good movies. the list of video games that were movies reads like a Razzies lifetime achievement ballot.
I thought it was already canned? Be careful around.. by captboulder	Oct 30th, 2006 11:57:26 PM
here now, especially on this TB or you'll probably get banned.
I hate to say it but: Too soon. by Doc_Strange	Oct 30th, 2006 11:59:50 PM
Seriously, the way they're trying to get this out as quickly as possible smells like they are just trying to cash in on the Halo name and not so much the story aspect of it. Also, the fact that a movie like this would cost hundreds of millions to make, would it be in their best interests to release this film this quickly? The bigger question is, would the movie make its budget back and then some? I liked Halo, I thought Halo 2 sucked. Whether I would see this or not lies within the movie's direction and script. From what I've read, the script ain't that great and having a first time director can go either way. In otherwords, this movie is a crapshoot.
What was the proposed budget for this movie? by YackBacker	Oct 31st, 2006 12:04:43 AM
I think studios are more gunshy than ever to finance large-scale movies.
Give me a Break by Phategod2	Oct 31st, 2006 12:05:07 AM
Am I the only one who thinks Halo's story completely sucks for over a hour and a half you gonna watch a Guy run around looking like a Biker with a female computer in his head with a bunch of retarded aliens that have mastered Intersteller space travel but have no Idea that there praying to Genocidal super death ray, and AI talking ball, yeah theres a recipe for a classic movie. Halo had one of the worst "Campain" modes of any game and the story was completely asinine Feel Free to flame away.
Don't care! by Power_Girl	Oct 31st, 2006 12:10:06 AM
I've seen this film already no need for this remake/ripoff of Aliens and Starship Troopers. Anyway the main character has a laim costume and a jeneric video game voice. The aliens are the most retarded looking piles of shit I've ever seen.
It could be Fast-Tracked one of two ways. Or both. by DoodlyDingDongTickTock	Oct 31st, 2006 12:10:40 AM
1.Peter signs on as director But I would seriously rather see him do a two-part Hobbit, and get the entire crew back together for another trip through middle-earth. 2.Gates personally finances it I would like to see Gates do that. Just for kicks. He wouldn't even notice a 300 million dent in his wallet. It would be the biggest independent film of all time. If it was hyped just right, it could make such green.
Die a quiet death my ass! by S-Mart shopper	Oct 31st, 2006 12:11:31 AM
If anything some fucktards down the road will try to "re-imagine" it and it'll end up being another streetfighter or some other sugar covered turd. why doesn't Gates let his NUTS hang and pony up the dough, I'm sure he's got 200mill somewhere in a cookie jar. WTF are people thinking? I have an idea: let's get some talented folks together who are staying true to a story and daily are growing more passionate about a project then before finalizing details about said project we pull out their favorite little puppy dog and BLOW ITS FUCKING HEAD OFF! whatever, every day that passes I lose more and more faith in the movie industry, what makes today any different.
Too good to be true by NewClassic	Oct 31st, 2006 12:11:42 AM
This could have been GOLD. It could have been a runaway hit in a genre full of failures. I panicked when I heard they were making a Halo movie b/c I thought the ONLY way it was going to work was if they pulled in some major talent...talking about Spielberg/Cameron talent. Then out of nowhere Jackson signed on and it was all too good to be true. Well, it was. Now, I'm hearing a lot of talk that sounds a lot like, "oh, you can't blame the studios! Video game movies don't deliver!" We all know video games do not = quality. Sure some adaptations have made a buck or two, but let's be honest--how many people here hold a video game movie as a favorite? Zero. But man, we're talking about Peter Jackson here, not Boll! This man and his creative team are pure gold--trialed and tested! They are the kings of the epic film. Shame on the studios for not being brave enough, brave like New Line was with LOTR.
King Kong did not quite perform as expected by zooch	Oct 31st, 2006 12:13:51 AM
and I loved King Kong and fully support Peter Jackson and co. but 200mill is ALOT of money. Even putting Peter Jackson behind a film does not guarentee it will be a Mega-Blockbuster. That is why they can't get the funds.
Why the hell by Trancer	Oct 31st, 2006 12:14:26 AM
doesn't Microsoft just pony up a measley $200 million to make this, and make another billion dollars after all the chips are counted? FUCK the movie studios.
This could be good news!! by EdwardApplebee	Oct 31st, 2006 12:18:22 AM
this could be the greatest news boys and girls and i'll tell you why. forget the halo world, sure we love it, we've all lost some sleep because of if it. we've also really pissed of our friends and screamed f bombs into the night because of it. it's alright though, something else is coming, something more important!!!! THE HOBBIT!!!!! yes my friends and foes, this means that peter and his team will have more time to work on the 2 hobbit flicks. Please Lord God, let peter fran and co. write, create and direct the Hobbit, if i hear they went w/ anyone else i just might have to be very sad.
The argument of Blomkamp by NewClassic	Oct 31st, 2006 12:30:11 AM
Yes, he's never made a major motion picture, but anyone who has seriously hunted for Blomkamp material on the web knows the man is a complete master at what he does. Jesus, some of the stuff I've seen of his is just simply bad-ass. Notably, the short film about the 3rd world robocop was, in my opinion, jaw dropping. The man understands machines--the way they move, how they opperate, how they look and "feel". He's fit to direct the Chief any day of the week. Also, the man uses atmosphere and mood like I haven't seen in a real long time, which is a valuable component to the Halo games. You're lying to yourself if you didn't automatically get hard watching the opening minutes of "Alive in Joburg."
Microsoft: Finance it yourself! and fuck the Studios. by Rindain	Oct 31st, 2006 12:35:33 AM
The studios are fucking retarded. It seems like anything that will be awesome, is backed by great talent and is destined to make a kajillion bucks will be killed by these retarded studios.
M$ responsible? by REALmightymouse	Oct 31st, 2006 12:48:57 AM
I remember reading somewhere that the reason this bogged down was because MS wanted a good chunk of the profits instead of accepting the "normal" take. I think I remember the amount being somewhere around 20%, and the studios wanted the figure closer to 10%. 20% is a lot of dough, and would have cut directly into the studio's profit. I'm not sure I'd fault the studios for not doing it as I would MS for being too damn greedy. But, you know, it's not like that's never happened before.
Yahoooooooooooooo! by Nairb The Movie	Oct 31st, 2006 12:56:11 AM
Thank you lord! This is the best news I've heard in the realm of movies in god knows how long. HALO the movie would have opened to as huuuuuuuuuuuuuge sucess and opened up the flood gates for Zelda the Movie, Spyro the Dragon the Movie, Crash Bandicoot the movie, Super Mario Brothers Returns, Tetris the movie... ETC... This is great!
MS will finance this when my arse grows wings by NachoNegro	Oct 31st, 2006 01:21:33 AM
The reason Microsoft don't finance it themselves is that they don't want to take on all the risk. Video game adaptions don't have a good record of making money. If any up and coming sci-fi action pic is going to bust the box office it's going to be Halo (or perhaps Avatar), but still I wouldn't like to put $250m of my company's money into it, especially when my company knows jack about producing films.
It gives me hope. by Nodwick	Oct 31st, 2006 01:25:53 AM
Now that the Halo movie itself is dead, how about a two-hour movie of "Red vs. Blue?" Remember: "Red vs. Blue" episodes are like Voltron; the more you stick together, the better it is... or something.
EdwardApplebee - The HOBBIT movie by antonphd	Oct 31st, 2006 01:30:42 AM
Exactamundo!! My first thoughts were 'here comes the Hobbit movies, baby!'. Halo is missing a great window here, but I would rather wait on Halo and have The Hobbit. If you have seen the footage of Halo3 on the 360, you know that Halo is only going to be getting bigger and bigger and bigger. They can wait another year or two and it will be just fine.
Rather see Half Life by NachoNegro	Oct 31st, 2006 01:33:27 AM
Actually I'd far rather see a Half-Life movie. The difference is, Valve are actually TURNING PEOPLE DOWN. Why? Because they 'want to make the best movie possible'. Amazing isn't it? I tell you, done right, Half Life could own all of your asses utterly, like a 15 foot tall robotic George Takei.
AICN Vendetta by Alex Childress	Oct 31st, 2006 01:39:18 AM
Granted, Fox/Uni deciding not to trust Peter "LOTR - $1,032,282,337 est. U.S. theater gross" Jackson and Co. will probably wind up being one of the biggest fucking mistakes since passing on James Cameron's Titanic/Romeo and Juliet thing. My question is, AICN has long had it out for Fox and Tom Rothman specifically (at least since 2005). It's never been clear why, exactly. It makes me doubt the trustworthiness of the site, and no, I have never worked for Fox or any Fox subsidiary. I just want to know where AICN's principle's lie in going after this guy most available times.
MetalWater by NachoNegro	Oct 31st, 2006 01:39:19 AM
Do you really think there's the slightest chance of Microsoft committing half a billion dollars to a venture in a market space they have no history in, with an unproven director, with a film type (i.e. video game adaption) that historically does not perform well? It's a good thing for them you're not Bill Gates, because if you were the whole company would have been flushed down the toilet years ago.
You know what I'd like? No video game movies. by s00p3rm4n	Oct 31st, 2006 01:49:37 AM
Yeah that's right fucksquats (I don't even know what that word means, but it combines fucking and squatting which in some cases can be the same thing). You know what I want? NO MORE FUCKING VIDEO GAME MOVIES. Maybe come up with a fucking story on your own, about space rangers with big guns shooting alien things. Huh? Can't think of that? Well, then you shouldn't be trying to outdo Paul Verhoeven in the first place, should you? That's right. Go back to writing your shitty adaptation of that game where that girl with big tits tries to make it in Vegas. OOPS. My point in summary: Paul Verhoeven has out-shat every shitty movie you or anyone you think is cool in this town will ever come up with. So why not try to do something good instead of eating shit and then shitting it back out as even shittier shit?
Damn you Michael Bay by MCMLXXVI	Oct 31st, 2006 01:51:26 AM
Damn you Michael Bay
NachoNegro and Phategod2 ARE RIGHT by ScienceMan	Oct 31st, 2006 01:58:39 AM
Can't believe there are only two other likeminded folks in this talkback. Halo, the game, is incredibly over-rated. Its very mediocrity is the reason for its phenomenal success. It's like the Pink Floyd of videogames - lots of young kids, ignorant of much better talent (or games, if you follow my metaphor) discover Pink Floyd and think "Hey, this band rocks and nobody knows about it but me" and then they tell their friends and discover that pretty much every meathead American highschool jock loves Pink Floyd because, well, they're a popular band that was never really all that cutting-edge to begin with but they get tons of airplay on classic rock stations. That analogy went poorly. Here's the deal. HALO is a console game (I know, it's ported to PC, but that's beside the point). As a first-person shooter on a console, it is going to suffer simply by design. First-person shooters are best played with a mouse and keyboard, not a console + sign control pad with xy ab buttons. FPS games are generally not the biggest sellers for either PCs or consoles - that honor is shared by sports, fantasy, and simulation titles. Core PC gamers, especially the FPS crowd, looks down their nose at HALO and the hoi polloi who think it's such a great game, in the same sneering fashion that the 2fast 2furious-type late night street racer types in my neighborhood look down on my beat-up piece of shit '94 Saab. I finally played HALO just last year in an attempt at slumming in the console world. I started to play with an open mind, telling myself that maybe millions of fans were right and I would happily be proven wrong and that HALO was infact a great game. Sadly, that was not the case. My worst suspicions were only confirmed. HALO broke no new ground when it was released. The Covenant are just silly. The "plot" was a silly patchwork strung together by a bunch of programmers who were far more concerned with nailing down trivial little things like actually coding the gameplay. Sure, they had some "creative" talent but the idea of treating any "plot" to HALO as some sacred cow for a screenplay is ridiculous. I just really can't fully express how mediocre HALO is. This is one of those cases where "elitism" is shown to not always be a bad thing. If you are a studio executive with a burlap sack filled with dollars and a burning desire to produce the best movie of a videogame ever, please, make HALFLIFE and leave HALO as an endless string of Zelda-esque titles for the kiddies to play before they graduate to real videogames.
s00p3rm4n you utter twat by NachoNegro	Oct 31st, 2006 01:59:37 AM
Maybe they ought to stop doing adaption of 'books' as well? You know, those things with lots of pieces of paper, with writing on them? Ever read one of those? Where do you think Starship Troopers came from? Or Total Recall? Ass clown.
Not too worried about it anyways... by JunoFallon	Oct 31st, 2006 02:00:24 AM
I'm not against video games movies or anything. I do however think that, a) There are more deserving game series to be made into a movie, and b) HALO doesn't have that good of a story anyways. It's fairly shallow.
why are people shocked? by lionbiu	Oct 31st, 2006 02:04:34 AM
I am not at all, thought this news was long overdue....the budget is to high, the director is totally inexperienced (it does not matter about short films, we are talking about feature length movies with big casts and huge SFX) and Microsoft wanted a bigger than usual cut of profits. It was always going to be turned down....the transfer from videogame to movie has never been good and Peter Jackson is not as talented as some geeks would have you think (KING KONG SUCKED FUCKING DONKEY BALLS). Halo is a good game, but the plot is just a tired rehash of other sci-fi movies......barely anything would have been different, the movie would have been rated PG-13 and probably made what Superman Returns earned.
remember King Kong by gobofraggleuk	Oct 31st, 2006 02:07:35 AM
It took years for KK to happen - the fact that PJ and Co. are waiting for better financing does not mean that this is going to 'die a quiet death'... seriously, imagine if they bring out a HALO sequel on XBOX360 and it's a big success...
Well if the movie cost as much as they said it would by Poacher	Oct 31st, 2006 02:08:31 AM
Can you blame them for backing out? I certainly can't. These studios are starting to realize how little money they are making off these ultra expensive movies. It would be a HUGE gamble for them -- the director is probably the least of their worries. Look at Superman...a property everyone knows, but it would've had to have Pirates numbers in order to have turned a good profit with the insane budget...and Superman doing Pirates or Spider-Man 2 numbers is a lot easier to buy than Halo doing those numbers. Jackson and Co. have to bring the budget down to something workable before they can move forward on this thing....wait for the sequel for the ridiculous budget.
On financing film... by Cold Winter Wind	Oct 31st, 2006 02:11:04 AM
I really don't recall what the budget for Halo:The Movie was supposed to be, but I'd be willing to betcha that Bill Gates could finance the damn thing out of his personal petty cash, ferChrist'Sake!
Microsoft is already pouring money into Halo 3. by NewClassic	Oct 31st, 2006 02:12:16 AM
You think it's just Bungie coughing it all up? No my friends.
IESB is talking shit about AICN re: Halo movie... by Rindain	Oct 31st, 2006 02:22:35 AM
http://tinyurl.com/y29wu6
The only people that care... by NeoDevilbaneX	Oct 31st, 2006 02:23:13 AM
... are people that haven't played a real PC FPS. The rest couldn't care less. "Halo" is crap and doesn't even deserve the big budget treatment.
If PJ is soooo convinced by themanlikedave	Oct 31st, 2006 02:30:57 AM
by the 'awseome' work that's been done so far, why not put his money where his mouth is and use some of that big fat stack of Rings dollars to finance this fucker?.
NeoDevilbaneX has the crux of it by NachoNegro	Oct 31st, 2006 02:33:00 AM
There's nothing new in Halo. It's a reasonable amalgam of a number of sci-fi staples, but there's nothing there that hasn't been done before. I'd much rather see Half-Life - HL had a story that puts Halo to shame, and it wouldn't require anything like $200m to bring to the screen.
Half Life this, Hald Life that... by NewClassic	Oct 31st, 2006 02:40:51 AM
I love Halo AND Half Life, but studios want a movie with a big name. Chances are more kids have heard of Halo more than Half Life. That's why they haven't made a HL movie. Case closed.
I really enjoy Halo... by seanny_d	Oct 31st, 2006 02:42:49 AM
That said, I think it's lame to dismiss the game because it cannot compete with any FPS on the PC. I won't argue there. An FPS is much better played with a mouse and keyboard. But I hate being hunched over in my computer chair playing a game for hours on end on a 17" screen that can't even run the game to full capacity because I am constantly needing to upgrade my system. Personally, I'd rather be sitting on my couch with a controller enjoying myself. It may not have the accuracy, but I still find it fun. And while Halo 1 was essentially a "reimagining" of Aliens, I think the story as a whole could take some interesting turns, especially since the Forerunner are probably humans. Meaning that the Covenant are trying to exterminate the descendents of the creators of all they hold sacred. And finally, I'm sick of the "video game" argument. Any medium has the huge potential to be translated poorly to the screen. Video game movies have sucked because no one has cared and it's always been to capitalize on the name and not to make a good movie. If Jackson and co. are actually TRYING to make a good movie and not just cashing in, then I think that could completely change the way people see video game movies. It doesn't matter what the inspiration for a film is, it matters what is done with that inspiration. I think it's very shortsighted to look at all potential video game movies like that.
Could be quite different by declan_44	Oct 31st, 2006 03:01:26 AM
I realize that it is a way back in the talkback, but to the bloke who said FPS does not work well for film adaptations, you must appreciate that Halo offers, first, a complete narrative (Ok, well the third one is not out yet, but I cannot imagine them not continuing the story arc). Doom had no narrative to speak off. Second, Halo has an amazing protagonist, that we were allowed to identify with. Imagine a film version where, like the game, he speaks only rarely and we never see his face (also imagine all you would save on casting). You could never understand Doom's protagonist as the game never allowed the player to. But I will admit that there is some general flaws with video game adaptations, in that the reason that the game market is now bigger than hollywood, is that it enables you, the player or avatar, to dictate the narrative. So when we see something that we expect we could play, even better than is filmed, we become dissapointed that we cannot. I am on the fence with this news. I mean the Flood could be done scary as s&%t, but then I imagine Master Chief pulling off his helmet halfway through, JUDE LAW (Or another tosser) SMILING AT THE CAMERA, before kissing...say Kirsten Dunst. I mean all credit to Mr. Jackson, but he is not really a groundbreaking director. His films are beautiful, but do not make any jumps ahead in terms of film study. This is what video game adaptations need, a totally new look for the big screen, not just the same old Hollywood method of filming. Frank Miller perhaps (After seeing the 300 trailer)?
Will this affect AVATAR? by Rindain	Oct 31st, 2006 03:06:53 AM
Maybe with Halo out of Fox's hands they will fast track James Cameron's AVATAR and maybe even increase its budget. At the very least, they hopefully won't give Cameron as hard a time as they gave Peter, Fran, and Microsoft. I just want to see an awesome, mega-bidget sci-fi movie with WETA effects, and now that HALO is at least temporarily out of the picture I hope the upside is that AVATAR will really get rolling. I want to see some production art or hear some official casting news ASAP.
When Microsoft bought Bungie by Roderich	Oct 31st, 2006 03:08:22 AM
...to use superior knowledge and style created by a game-company for Apple macintosh-computers to boost their ugly me-too-product "X-Box", they did what they always do: Harvest other people's ideas. Why should Microsoft make a good motion picture? At least they know by themselves, that they know absolutely _nothing_ about creativity.
Great news! by kwisatzhaderach	Oct 31st, 2006 03:23:09 AM
There has never been a good movie made out of a computer game. Keep computer games on the computer screens and get writing real movies you Hollywood jackasses!!!!!
Why are so many of you complaining? by Darth Mulder	Oct 31st, 2006 03:39:59 AM
Right now so many of you are saying how retarded the studios are for backing out of this.But if the film were actually being made,these very same people would be screaming about how sorry the film turned out.No film is ever good enough for most talk backers on this site.Even a really good movie like "King Kong" directed by Peter The Great wasn't good enough for you. what makes you think this movie would be any better than the other video game based films that have come before it?
Calling Dr. Boll.... by DarthBakpao	Oct 31st, 2006 03:55:51 AM
Somewhere in Germany, Uwe Boll is praying...
Who cares? by ssr_x	Oct 31st, 2006 04:04:49 AM
The game is an average FPS with a non-existent storyline and crap alien designs. How was this supposed to be a good movie, exactly?
ssr-x by declan_44	Oct 31st, 2006 04:12:27 AM
Since you have shown that you are an 'expert' of games, please tell us, what is a good fps with a story-line?
Wow, there won't be another movie based on a game? by JackPumpkinhead	Oct 31st, 2006 04:22:32 AM
That's so sad. Maybe some upcoming remake of a classic horror will be canceled this week, too? That would really be too sad, I would probably fall from laughing too hard with all this "sadness"...
Declan, isn't it Half-Life? by TheMackenzie	Oct 31st, 2006 04:23:09 AM
Do I win a prize?
Maybe I misread you LIONBIU . . . by PMonkeyReclaimed	Oct 31st, 2006 04:29:49 AM
But I think you said that King Kong, and I quote "sucked fucking donkey balls." And that makes me sad for you. Why, you ask? It's because you couldn't recognize that King Kong is one of the greatest and most beautiful movies of our time. Oh wait, I bet it was too long, huh? Or maybe you could have done without the first hour? Tell you what. You go ahead and give my best to Michael Bay and leave enjoying good movies to myself and the other people who have good taste and an attention span. I hear that there's gonna be lots of big explosions and good one-liners in the new Transformers movie. That ought to work for you, right? You still there? I know how you get when you don't take your special "slow down" pills . . .
ONLY POSTPONED by FofR	Oct 31st, 2006 04:47:44 AM
http://halomovie.trivialbeing. net/ "Please note POSTPONED does NOT mean canceled. So many news articles claimed Game Over for the Halo movie, it's not over, it's an unfortunate set back."
Screw video game movies. Make the Hobbit! by Walterego	Oct 31st, 2006 04:51:46 AM
Jackson needs to stop wasting time on stuff that anybody could make. Nobody else is going to make the Hobbit, whereas a first person shooter game movie adaption could be done by just about any director/producer in hollywood. Luc Besson would do just as good a job or perhaps better than Jackson.
oh dear.. by Evil Hobbit	Oct 31st, 2006 05:00:12 AM
..most depressing news in the early morning. On the other hand, it aint. Maybe they now just fight there way to the hardcore R rated Halo movie we so desire, yes plz get Legendary or New Line on it. I have faith in the creative team and Blomkamp to pull it of his previous work is amazing, so will Halo.
Who knows? by Franklin T Marmoset	Oct 31st, 2006 05:02:06 AM
Maybe this is good news for the fans of this Halo videogame. When the top auteurs of the videogame film genre are Uwe Boll and Paul W S Anderson, perhaps it is time to throw up your hands and say 'Uncle'. 'This is a difficult nut to crack,' we must say, 'and us puny humans are not adequately evolved to properly operate the nutcrackers. Or something.' The acceptance of this knowledge will make us all happier, I think. Also, there will be no more Silent Hill films.
WELL by THE KNIGHT	Oct 31st, 2006 05:06:33 AM
That's less competition for The Dark Knight in 2008... but damn, I really wanted to see them pull this one off...
I agree with Mackenzie by ssr_x	Oct 31st, 2006 05:08:40 AM
HL2 has a great premise, but it's bolstered by the game's fantastic art direction and I'm not convinced they're not making up the G-man stuff as they go along. It probably wouldn't translate well to the big screen. But then few games would. Perhaps they should just stop making them altogether? But by all means, Declan, please explain what is so special about Halo that would make such a great movie.
ssr_x by Evil Hobbit	Oct 31st, 2006 05:17:32 AM
It's the thrill of Halo realy. The brutal war action of the game. The alien war. You know how frikkin amazing it would be to see in film the landing on the beach with this big ass aircrafts. Then you are dropped in the middle of the action where they drive around on there Warthogs. Kick of Aliens from there Banshees. Step on it themselves to slaughter more aliens. The brilliant music swelling, the sun flaring in the lens. Believe me, you want to see that kind of action on film. There is this unique feel about the Halo universe that is so compelling for film as well. Perhaps Halo is better of to be produced indepent. Or else maybe even Disney.
Not convinced by ssr_x	Oct 31st, 2006 05:40:06 AM
I've seen that kind of thing on film before, and read it in books, and there's nothing unique about Halo that suggests it would do anything differently. Maybe if you've not played many FPS games or read much sci-fi Halo would seem revolutionary, but it's not surprising the studios turned it down when the money could be better spent on several more deserving projects. If it's epic SF they want there are a ton of novels out there. Make a Bolo film, or do John Steakley's Armor or Joe Haldeman's Forever War. If you want something epic, make Iain M. Banks Consider Phlebas.
They're making Street Fighter! BWAAAAHAHAHAHA!!! by DOGSOUP	Oct 31st, 2006 05:59:18 AM
Stupid stupid cokeheaded franchise killing starlet raping cocksucking studios. Hey it's funny when they shoot their own feet! It's classic comedy!
Sit down and think by aestheticity	Oct 31st, 2006 06:02:30 AM
you halflife dickheads. What story could a halflife film tell? The first game is exclusively you, with guns, and a dude in a suit who walks past sometimes, with a ridiculous ending. The second game is better, but is still just you, running and gunning, with an assortment of characters helping you now and then, and another retarded ending. At no point does the 'narrative' leave you with your guns. Halo, you dolts dont seem to know, is set within a larger universe with its own events taking place previously and concurrently. Both games involve multiple antagonists, intrigue, empathy and pathos, big action, military bravado (always sells) and I could go on. OK the second game has a weak ending, but it's there to lead into the third game. When you nerds start trying to talk about mice and keyboards in a movie talkback, you lose all credibility.
Whats with everyone spoofing themselves.... by YourDaddy	Oct 31st, 2006 06:02:56 AM
...over this fucking game? Its no different to many FPS out there. THe only reason its huge and sold so many units was because it was the first game made for the X box...in other words, there was no other fucking games to buy!! Of course its going to be popular you fucking retards!! It doesnt mean its anything spectacular that warrants a big budget movie. Get over this Halo cockfest.
WELL by THE KNIGHT	Oct 31st, 2006 06:19:35 AM
Why do people keep saying the budget was too high! The reports in the last few weeks clearly stated that the budget was around 130 million but Microsoft and PJ back end percentages were too high for them.. That's probably theeeeeeeee main reason they backed out of Halo... The studios won't make much of a profit since most of it is going to MS and PJ...
Maybe... by Freefinger	Oct 31st, 2006 06:31:47 AM
The studios are afraid Jackson will pull out, and be replaced with Micheal Bay.... ? Or maybe the script ain't that good after all and they don't want to be caught with another Superman (Even if they confirmed that they were going ahead with Superman Returns Again...). they might want to hold off... I think it's good news. If they are about to make this film, might as well do it has it's supposed to, going all out and being the next great franchise, and for that you need to have the right people and Studios backing you.
Why Microsoft Won't Finance Themselves by ByTor	Oct 31st, 2006 06:33:39 AM
Because they're not imbeciles. Video game movies always suck, and typically suck at the box office. Why would MS risk $200m (and say what you will; that's a lot of money, even to MS)? Much better to get a studio to risk it, esp. as that's what studios do.
WELL by THE KNIGHT	Oct 31st, 2006 06:34:12 AM
Why do people keep saying the budget was too high! The reports in the last few weeks clearly stated that the budget was around 130 million but Microsoft and PJ back end percentages were too high for them.. That's probably theeeeeeeee main reason they backed out of Halo... The studios won't make much of a profit since most of it is going to MS and PJ...
Universal just had some cash free up and guess what ! by Mace Tofu	Oct 31st, 2006 06:35:18 AM
Todays news: Universal is paying $42.5 million for the worldwide rights to the film "Bruno," Sacha Baron Cohen's follow-up movie to "Borat.". The price includes the production budget of the film, rumored to be in the $20 million-$25 million range. Also included is a significant profit-participation component for the film's participants, believed to be the 15% range. why make a cool sci-fi epic when you can make a $42 million dollar gay comedy...Great.
I'd imagine this movie would be like the game... by Pongo	Oct 31st, 2006 06:35:29 AM
in the fact that if you went with friends it would be fun but if you watched it by yourself it would be boring and repetitive.
In response to "Helo" by Freefinger	Oct 31st, 2006 06:36:52 AM
Yeah would be great to see a ballsy move by MS to auto finance the movie. But I think there was only one guy who had the balls to invest in something so big, he made airplanes, then movies, then bought a casino, went a little nuts and died... Howard Hughes... We need another one like him... Someone way rich guy who doesn't care if he loses a couple of million if it doesn't make the money it's supposed to make as long as it's good and true to the game's storyline. Hell, if they stay with the storyline they should have a garanteed hit and make a huge profit.
Studios only want cheap suckage like AvP by performingmonkey	Oct 31st, 2006 06:50:00 AM
They're not interested in financing a videogame movie that's taking itself seriously. By the way, the only person who can possibly save the sci-fi movie is CAMERON. Watch this motherfucking space for Avatar, you fatherfucks.
I want this movie to be really good... by Fridge	Oct 31st, 2006 06:58:31 AM
...just so it'll kick Fox in the balls.
Hey, Mace Tofu by ByTor	Oct 31st, 2006 07:03:18 AM
The Borat sequel is uber-cheap and will quickly turn a profit. Can't say that about a sci-fi epic, ESPECIALLY one based on a video game (did I mention all movies based on video games suck?).
Whatever happened to... by GoonF	Oct 31st, 2006 07:11:58 AM
WETA's Evangelion movie?
has anybody seen John Galt lately? by moondoggy2u	Oct 31st, 2006 07:17:48 AM
That guy owes me 20 bucks--it appears that Superman did gross over 200 million dollars (finally) and got the green light for a sequel. I hope Galt isnt a welcher.
Stop being snobs--this would have rocked by Ricky Henderson	Oct 31st, 2006 07:20:20 AM
First off, Halo isn't like many other videogames. Its a massive sci-fi universe with a backstory told by books, graphic novels, and music. At its core, the story is very similar to Star Wars--it's a big, fun, bombastic space opera. The whole universe lends itself perfectly to a movie treatment. The idiots on this board need to actually resarch something before slandering it. I'm really curious to see what the preliminary work was before this project got shelved. Knowing Microsoft, this won't stay shelved for long--there are too many people who realize that this movie would absolutely break the mold of "bad videogame movies." Stop slamming something you haven't ever experienced and pick up the game sometime, mmmkay? Morons.
Just as well... by Ironmuskrat	Oct 31st, 2006 07:26:06 AM
It most likely would have ended up as some horrible Starship Troopers clone, but without the gratuitous nudity.
ScienceMan by pandamaster83	Oct 31st, 2006 07:26:50 AM
HAHAHA... ahem... real video games? You sound like a kid in a playground taunting his friends... I can't stand people who resort to saying certain games are for kids. Especially Halo or Zelda. The real kids are the ones who aren't comfortable enough with their gamer image so they try to make their favroutie games somehow more grown-up than the competing material. It's a frigging VIDEO GAME! Also, I disagree with your Pink Floy danalogy. And just because I'm a Pink Floyd fan deosn't validate your argument.
Sigh by pandamaster83	Oct 31st, 2006 07:38:32 AM
I agree with one side who argues that the history of videogame movies had been shitty. But I agree with the other side who say that it's not the fact that it's a videogame that made past movies shit, it was the fact that they were shit movies. Saying a movie is going to be shit because it was a FPS game is like saying the movie will be shit because Lost in Space was set on another planet and that was shit too. I haven't played Halo, and I haven't liked a single game movie, but then past game movies haven't had this talent behind them. As someone else said earlier, all films based on theme park rides aren't going to be good, but sometimes a Pirates of the Caribean will come along.
Does anyone really and truly give a shit? by lucasisking	Oct 31st, 2006 07:42:08 AM
I have never, ever seen a good movie made from a computer game. Resident Evil 4 is probably one of the best games ever, but the movies suck. Just like every other game-based movie sucks. Silent Hill, Doom, Mortal Combat- just stop already. The Peter Jackson connection means nothing (how many crap films were peddled by attaching Tarantino's name to them every five minutes?). It's all about story. Games don't make good movies and movies don't usually make good games. Use one of the HUNDREDS of good sci-fi novels out there as source material. Better still, come up with something ORIGINAL.
i agree with zombiesolutions by moondoggy2u	Oct 31st, 2006 07:44:36 AM
I hear that Star Wars is pretty good, too. Supposedly, it even has Harrison Ford in it--deffinitely on my "reccomend to friends" list.
"Mister Gates! Mister Gates!" by tonagan	Oct 31st, 2006 07:48:51 AM
"Don't spend that $300 million to help stop the spread of HIV in Africa, use it to finance a movie!"
sweet by spidercoz	Oct 31st, 2006 07:56:31 AM
Now if they just shit-can the new Street Fighter movie that'll make my day.
Fox does make good decisions afterall by DigitalDong	Oct 31st, 2006 07:58:29 AM
It would have been like the video game anyways. Good opening weekend, then fizzles to nothing the next week....just like Halo 2 did.
so...all you have to do by Westonian	Oct 31st, 2006 08:05:44 AM
to direct a movie like halo is make a short film like alive in Joberg? Its not really that great you know. I don't blame fox and universal.
D&D, video game, RPG wetdreams.... by tucson	Oct 31st, 2006 08:13:40 AM
...all of them are pretty exciting to the guys spooging on themselves. No one wants to see it made into a movie.
RE: ByTor The Borat sequel is uber-cheap by Mace Tofu	Oct 31st, 2006 08:23:57 AM
"The Borat sequel is uber-cheap and will quickly turn a profit..." WOW. What world do you live in where $42 million and 15% of your profits is UBER-CHEAP. So BRUNO would have to make 3X or $126 million to turn a profit. UBER-CHEAP? OK Whatever I still would like to see WETA blow the $$$ and UNI could shoot BRUNO on Mini DV and it would still be as funny.
Halo Don't Cha Know...with Chips 'n Salsa by kuguy3000	Oct 31st, 2006 08:29:09 AM
Hey Hey What's this Quint? You malign the story of the Street Fighter series as not being film-worthy, yet both praise and lament that Halo's tale won't make the big screen? That's ok...we're all entitled to our opinons (even if they are nutso). Ha ha...just kiddin with ya, we're both right. Truth is, anyone who knows anything remotely TRUE about video games knows two things about the Halo games...ONE (1) they were fun FPS games, and TWO (2) the series was the single saving grace for the XBOX platform. That said... no Halo = No XBOX system. Yeah, I'm not exaggerating, so don't flame me or else I'll throw ABBA tunes at you. As far as expanding the Halo games, maybe now was the right time and maybe it wasn't... from everything that's known about Bungie and MS, it's hard to believe for a second that either company was 'unwilling to budge or compromise quality'. Are you joking?!! Both MS and Bungie are NOTORIOUS (mostly MS...hiss) for rushing their product to market. Case in point... 1. the original Halo, designed for both PC and MAC from the start, was seriously rushed to meet the original XB release date. As a result, multiplayer was thrown together, and native online play was disabled. The original game's scope was shortned considerably and true cooperative gameplay was muted into a travesty. 2. HALO 2, to make the MS deadline, had several of it's unique multiplayer features (such as unique skins, character physics, etc) disabled to meet deadline. Also gone was the promised online cooperative play, and we were left with an abbreviated single-player mission that couldn't touch the first game. I've mentioned this before...and while I'm a big fan of the Halo gameplay, I considered the second game more of an upgrade (continuation) than a sequel. For the most part, I'm fine with this... because I find the game to be quite fun. However, to think for one second that either the king of stymied development (Microsoft) or king of the bloated film (Peter Jackson) somehow had their awe-inspiring vision compromised is a joke. Jackson's notorious for going over-budget and (besides the Lord of the Rings) promsing more than he delivers. And this Weta pre-sketch stuff? PUH-LEEEEEEEZE! Anyone remember those amazing Weta predesigns for Lion, Witch, Wardrobe WW2 scenes? Of which ZIPPO made it into the final film? Weta's cool and all, but personally I'd like to see the same division of ILM that handles Speilbergo's work handled Halo... the effects in War of the World reminded me so much of Master Chief and his exploits...wow. Anyhoos...before I skeedaddle, one last thing. Seems that Quint and his internet-type look at press releases as 'gospel' so here's old Kuguy to set ya'll straight on the 'facts'. This is primarily a movie site so I consider this relevent... The game industry, while making it's billions, doesn't touch the film industry. Not by a long shot. Those releases that claim games sales to out-do that of movies are factually incorrect. They compare apples with oranges, and shouldn't be put in one delicious pie...here's how. Routinely, the entire cumulative GROSS of everything video game related does indeed out-gross theatrical earnings of all films, compared to the same empirical data of the ENTIRE film industry... well, it can't compare. When a game like Super Mario Brothers or Halo performs well, yes...they typically gross far more income than most films, and even most hit films (this is especially true when you take budget into consideration). For instance...take Goldeneye, game and movie... Goldeneye (great game btw) sold 8 million copies. Multiply that by $50 and you have upwards of $400 million in the til. That's gross. The MOVIE version of Goldeneye earned $150+ in US box office, and $350+ worldwide. Even at the extreme level the game outgrossed the film. Taking budget and advertising into account, the game becomes insanely more profitable. In fact, the game is regularly given credit for jump-starting the franchise back to life...ya hear? Most games don't sell that well, and neither do movies. That was an extreme example. Halo the game was treated much like a movie... hyped quite a bit through advertising and product-promotion, but in reality was never both the true blockbuster it was made out to be, nor could it have been. Halo was, and will always be, a niche genre game. An amazingly fun niche, genre game but the same nonetheless. First-day sales of 2.5 million (which is hella lot) notwithstanding, the series has never had (and never will) the universal appeal of let's say a Super Mario Brothers or Legend of Zelda... and that's COOL. Godfather doesn't have the universal appeal of Star Wars... that make it bad? In fact, most of the films this site champions most aren't huge blockbusters, but that hardly diminishes their value.. and thank goodness we have the option of choosing. But comparing the gross of any game to any movie is ridiculous... and silly. The average blockbuster game nearly always out-grosses the average blockbuster film for too many reasons to count... but by and large, the film industry makes more hits. Of course, which leads me to my last point... With graphics becoming so lifelike and systems getting more powerful (and overpriced...cough PS3) it's certain that games and movies will merge more...to my chagrin. Damn.. how many times you guys turn on a game and have to sit through TONS of shitty 'movie-like' titles and cinemas before you actually play the game? If I wanted to watch a movie I would WATCH a movie... I play a game to actually PLAY a game. Some developers don't realize this... and even your beloved Final Fantasy and Metal Gear series are super-guilty of this... where's the real gameplay, yo? GAMEPLAY! That said, if I turn on my new Legend of Zelda and see Link throwing back a Mountain Dew, and watchin' "Friends" I'm done with games...done I tells ya. Of course, something tells me that old Nintendy ain't gonna let that happen... peace!
Tempted to say:"Didn´t I say no studio will want Halo?" by MasterKenobi	Oct 31st, 2006 08:47:58 AM
After Universal and Fox dropped out. We can call the studios whatever we want. We can call Fox evil, it´s leader Rupert Murdoch the single most evil media mogul in the world. They also destroyed many great franchises, which I like to hate them for. But that won´t change the fact they were smart enough to realize NOT to give mr. Jackson 200 million plus to make a movie based on a videogame, which is way overhyped. The other studios reasoning went the same: Why give a director who´s recent film didn´t meet expectations, why give any director 200 millions, like Warner did with Supes. No more 200 million budget movies. I know Kong fans will start again and claim Kond did well at B.O. yadda yadda, but it didn´t. Period. And those who say Microsoft should go in and finance the flick, I can´t agree more. But we all know Gates and Microsoft are greedy fuckers. Microsoft sits on over 30 billion $ in cash. It has more money in reserve than Sony, Apple and Universal and couple of other companies combined, but they won´t spent 200 million on a Halo film. Personally I hope the film will get made. I believe that as long as Peter Jackson doesn´t interefer with the script (making it 3 hours long) a visionary director together with Wetas effects team can make quite a good sci-fi film.
for whoever suggested a Zelda movie by BLWiseass	Oct 31st, 2006 08:51:32 AM
Does anybody else think that Leo Dicapprio looks like Link? Like the adult link, not the little elf version. Well, actually i guess Leo is a bit of a little elf.
I dont blame em. by Omegaman	Oct 31st, 2006 08:52:56 AM
I wouldnt trust Peter Jackson either. Look at the mess he made out of King Kong. And why the LOR movies were so successful I dont know, I thought they were, for the most part, a bore. get the project away from Jackson and maybe then the studios would make it.
movies based on video games by ZO	Oct 31st, 2006 09:05:21 AM
never work
bill gates? by AlltoEasy	Oct 31st, 2006 09:12:32 AM
the dudes got enough cash, why can't pony up the money?
Read the script review at Latino Reviews damnit by Ricky Henderson	Oct 31st, 2006 09:18:01 AM
The script is out there and has been for a while Snuffles. Try googling something before making an ignorant comment. Hey, I've got an idea! How about more people chime to inform us that "MOVIES BASED ON VIDEOGAMES NEVER WORK!!!" I haven't heard that enough at all. This is a franchise with the potential to change all that with a balls to the wall, epic, space opera that would give Star Wars a run for its money. If you fools cant see that then youre worthless.
Having my ass handed it to me at 2am by an 8 year old.. by Frank Black	Oct 31st, 2006 09:20:40 AM
...is fun but it doesn't mean it will be a good movie! I have logged many, many hours of Halo 2 online but wasn't blown away by the story or the characters (who we never really get to know or truly see, Kenny from South Park anyone?) so why would I get excited to see this become a movie when there hasn't been ONE video game movie adaptation yet that proved to be worth making. (Silent Hill game close for me but I love those games.) Video games are all kind of derivative of other things (especially older movies) so it makes sense that they the movies always come off looking like bad replicas. A Devil May Cry movie might be fun, or a ShadowMan movie but Halo, for as much fun as it can be with 7 other people online, doesn't seem like a very entertaining stay in the theater. (Now, Gears of War might actually live up to it's hype on the 360 and make a great game! We shall see!)
That really is dissapointing by godzillasushi	Oct 31st, 2006 09:21:24 AM
Its a series that has such great scenery, and characters, and storylines. I can only hope that they wont be this stupid in the future. This is the kind of movie that would attract people with no interest in the game simply because it would be such a good sci-fi movie.
MasterKenobi by godzillasushi	Oct 31st, 2006 09:26:37 AM
You say "smart enough to realize NOT to give mr. Jackson 200 million plus to make a movie based on a videogame, which is way overhyped." but wouldnt a game that is THAT overhyped be a good thing dude? I mean they have not made a video game movie based on one of the top tier franchises. Im talking Zelda, MGS, and Halo. Those are all uberhyped titles and making any of them into a movie would be huge. M$ is smart not to finance the whole thing themselves because of the risk they would take on. They arent a movie studio afterall. Honestly though, respecting your opinion, I would much rather have an overhyped game-movie then anything else, wouldnt you?!?
Halo was trite and poorly designed by jimmy_009	Oct 31st, 2006 09:34:51 AM
Seriously, if you want to bore yourself to sleep, pick up the 'Art' of Halo. It's generic crap.
jimmy_009 by godzillasushi	Oct 31st, 2006 09:36:14 AM
You are teh smartest evaaarrrr!!11!11!!!
it was badly designed... by Obscura	Oct 31st, 2006 09:38:00 AM
from one perspective. the level design was pathetic (just sticking the same room together 50 times does not count as a level) but it did have good potential for a movie. it had enough room for scriptwriters to add their own flare, it was epic anough, and the visuals are always grand. it didnt really do anything new, it just did things well. except level design
RETARDED?!? This is the best news I've heard all year!! by Nate Champion	Oct 31st, 2006 09:53:23 AM
Hello, assholes. Who the fuck needs another shitty video game adaptation directed by some no-name clown with a mediocre short film to his name? If you care even one fucking iota about cinema, this is cause for celebration.
Does Harry ever write for this site anymore? by googamooga	Oct 31st, 2006 09:53:36 AM
I'm just saying...
Agreed, Obscura... by Lemming	Oct 31st, 2006 09:54:58 AM
While I think Halo the game was a laughable POS, and anyone who says otherwise needs to stop pissing around with consoles and actually get some FPS games for the games machine: the PC...deep breath I think Halo would have made a decent sci-fi film as far as concept is concerned
I can't feel bad about this, not surprised either. by minderbinder	Oct 31st, 2006 10:02:20 AM
There's no way in hell this thing would be a guaranteed huge moneymaker, just look at Final Fantasy (also enormous fanbase and millions of games sold). MS wanted a ton of creative control, and the movie would have been extremely expensive, potentially approaching $200M PLUS profits would be shared with MS and likely PJ's crew as well. Huge risk for a genre that has never had a hit anywhere near that big. It's obvious why MS won't finance it themselves, they realize it's a big risk and just want to call the shots on someone else's dime. "they have not made a video game movie based on one of the top tier franchises." They certainly did, and it was called Final Fantasy, one of the biggest game franchises ever and still going strong.
ALIVE IN JOBURG SUCKED!!! STOP PRAISING THAT CRAP by wolvenom	Oct 31st, 2006 10:09:29 AM
Seriously now i know how full of crap this site can sometimes be when they praise a 5 minute (potential youtube feature) piece of crap that the only thing it had to show for it was special effects.WELL GUESS WHAT AICN!!!! BLOMKAMP OR WHATEVER WAS HIRED TO DIRECT THE FILM NOT DO THE SPECIAL EFFECTS... GO BACK AND WATCH THAT FIVE MINUTE FILM TAKE OUT THE AWESOMENESS OF THE FX (awesome by short film standards, shitty by any other standards) AND THEN TELL ME HOW GREAT THAT PIECE OF CRAP IS... it had no story and it made the aliens look like degenerate retards.
rather see Half Life too by mikey mike	Oct 31st, 2006 10:11:20 AM
n/a
This is the third time this news has been reported. by kiddae	Oct 31st, 2006 10:13:18 AM
First as SHOCK news, then as AWESOME news ("Fuck Fox and Universal!!") and now as BAD/DEPRESSING news. Granted, there's a press release now, but it doesn't tell us anything we didn't know.
Halo 3 coming out in 2007 will revive this project. by Ricky Henderson	Oct 31st, 2006 10:21:05 AM
This movie will be revived once Halo 3 hits the stores. There will be a huge spotlight on how ridiculously well it sells for the 360. Once all these studios realize this, they will all scramble back to Microsoft's feet, I'm sure of it.
You people make me laugh! by NewClassic	Oct 31st, 2006 10:28:02 AM
All you winers out there giving Bill Gates crap for not personally financing this movie. Um, he's too busy with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation--you know, finding a cure for AIDS, eliminating world hunger, stuff like that. I'm pretty sure coughing up $200 mill for a video game movie is a little low on his to-do list right about now...
Overhyped game by MasterKenobi	Oct 31st, 2006 10:35:43 AM
It doesn´t need 200 million. That was my point. You are right when you say a studio should start by making a game as overhyped as Halo. It has lots of fans, but not as many as Superman. Now that film hadn´t enough action etc..., but even then; 200 million for a first movie in a franchise is just too much. You say Microsoft don´t want to take the risk. Yeah, that´s clear, but neither do the studios. Your point that they are no filmstudio is true, but they were no gameproducers console-makers either. They are very much involved with creating entertainment content these days. The thing with this whole story seems that Jackson and Microsoft just asked for too much money from the studios to start with. That happened with Kong and this time they didn´t want to give Jackson as much money. I can understand them. Now a solution would be for Microsoft to co-finance and pay Jackson some of his dear cash. Jackson and co must compromise if they want the studios interested in this project. As it looks now no studio dares to put money on Halo, regardless of how many oscars and how much money lord of the rings won the studios and Jackson.
Someone go get my little, tiny violin by georges garvaren	Oct 31st, 2006 10:35:56 AM
It's one more videogame spin-off that wont be mediocre. If Jackson wants to do help Elves and Giant Monkeys make their way to the screen, then that is fine even if the films are not the greatest. But at least the stories are worthwhile tales to tell. Halo, however, is not. Halos enjoyment lies in the interaction it has with the audience, not in its story or character development. At best this could be only popcorn and since we get so many of those poo-sacks every bloody week, let us not weep for one more that wont invade our lives for months of advertising bombardment. Now, I’m going to go play Wolfenstein 3D. Wait? They should make Wolfenstein into a movie! You go call Weta, I’m going to go take a piss.
Yet somehow HOSTEL 2 gets financed... by President Evil	Oct 31st, 2006 10:38:27 AM
...what a world.
Because Hostel 2 won't cost much... by Some Dude	Oct 31st, 2006 10:44:15 AM
...will make money and will be good. Halo, not so much.
Who the fuck cares? by HumbertHumbert	Oct 31st, 2006 10:47:34 AM
Halo is the Dane Cook of video games.
Response to "wolvenom" by NewClassic	Oct 31st, 2006 10:48:54 AM
So I took your advice and watched "Alive in Joburg" without paying attention to the SFX. You know what? I still (honestly) think it's an awesome piece of work. Blomkamp nailed the tone-- the grimy chaos of South Africa in the 1990's. Trust me, I lived in Johanessburg around that time. Sure he made the aliens look like degenate retards like you said, but I welcomed the originality. Who would think to make a short film about refugee aliens in South Africa? I'll tell you who--a dude with fresh ideas. Hollywood is going to crap and we need some new blood NOW. I'm sorry that you hate the piece, but it seems to me like you're one of the few.
ya bill gates should totally fund this piece of garbage by wolvenom	Oct 31st, 2006 10:56:26 AM
Halo is dog crap! I played the game and by no means found the story that entertaining. The gameplay is the only entertaining thing about it. But as far as the story goes its on par with doom,and duke nuke em. We saw how those movies turned out.
newclassic u agree the aliens were degenerate retards by wolvenom	Oct 31st, 2006 11:00:29 AM
that's all a sci-fi movie needs involving aliens to make it terrible. The fact that aliens can travel billions of lightyears away and dont have any sort of secondary, tertiary, or failsafe precautions to avoid being stranded on earth. FURTHER, BARELY HAVING ANY GOD DAMN TECHNOLOGY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST FREAKING GUNS?
ha ha by reckni	Oct 31st, 2006 11:06:39 AM
don't really care, but are the studios out of touch?
NEXT SUMMER ACTION AND ADVENTURE HAS NO BUDGET by davidlyons	Oct 31st, 2006 11:07:25 AM
mark my words this little flick made by somebody in there basement will piss all over transformers youtube.com smoking monkey movie trailer
oh and another thing by davidlyons	Oct 31st, 2006 11:15:06 AM
it's made using the movies. so does that mean it counts as a computer game film!
It's now time for... by rbatty024	Oct 31st, 2006 11:16:17 AM
Uwe Boll to sweep through and bring this thing to the big screen. If the studios are worried about budget, then Uwe is your man. Hell he can make a movie on $8.50 and a stick of gum.
wolvenom by NewClassic	Oct 31st, 2006 11:18:38 AM
E.T. didn't have technology to defend himself from guns and we all know how that movie did! But seriously, what I'm confused about is how you can say thay had no tech to defend themselves. They magnetically threw cars at people while wearing bullerproof armor! That sounds like technology to me. The point of the short film is that these aliens are REFUGEES and have NOTHING. They don't want to be here, they don't want to fight, they don't want to globally dominate, they just want to refuel and get the fuck out! In turn, we as humans kind of become the enemy. You might think it's lame, but I totally respect the angle Blomkamp chose.
M$ is indeed to blame by FrodoFraggins	Oct 31st, 2006 11:20:19 AM
M$ wanted a much bigger cut of the gross than they could get a studio to bite on. They apparently want the studios to take all of the risk and just hand M$ cash if it's a hit...Couldn't they have simply made a one film deal and taken a more standard cut. If they had faith in the director and the product they would then be able to come back and demand MUCH more on a sequel...Sounds to me like they lack faith in the product as much as the studios.
This sucks by Johnno	Oct 31st, 2006 11:22:04 AM
A video game based movie can be done folks... just need effort!
Video games don't make good movies? give me a break by Krigan	Oct 31st, 2006 11:22:20 AM
First up I'm sorry for insulting folks but that is an incredibly ignorant statement and all of you that keep saying it are not true film fans. If you were you would understand that a compelling film can be made about any subject with the right talent behind it.
Note to studios - by Lando Griffin	Oct 31st, 2006 11:24:39 AM
If Harry gives your movie a favorable review or pre-production endorsement - it is destined to suck, fail and you will lose money. That IESB post is funny because its accurate.
Mel should make this movie. At least finance it by anchorite	Oct 31st, 2006 11:32:44 AM
He could step up and make this thing happen, to the chagrin of everybody in Hollywood. The Passion of the Christ all over again. They could call it HALO: The Passion of the Chief. Or Steve Jobs and Pixar should make this movie, just to piss off Bill Gates and Microsoft.
Fox wanted to avoid making a shitty movie? by StarBlitzer	Oct 31st, 2006 11:54:41 AM
HOW DID FANTASTIC FOUR MANAGE TO GET MADE???
VIDEO GAME MOVIES SUCK? by antonphd	Oct 31st, 2006 11:58:41 AM
Video game movies have sucked because they have either been made by shitty directors and/or for way the hell too low of a budget. Doom was a fucking piece of shit for two huge reasons: 1, the budget was shit; 2, because the budget was shit they couldn't afford to make the demons from Hell and they made them mutated humans?!?!!? The Doom movie would have made a bundle if it had been properly financed and had actually followed the game story. Saving Earth from an invasion of demons from hell... that's fun... that would have been a hell of a ride. Video game are at least as good of a source as comics are and we've seen the difference between half ass comic movies and real comic movies.
There will never be a Half-Life movie. by mbeemer	Oct 31st, 2006 12:04:49 PM
Which is not to say it wasn't a GREAT game, but no one will adapt it for the screen. The reason? In Halo, you are running around gunning down aliens; in Half-Life, half of your targets are U.S. SOLDIERS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS. Yeah, they're trying to kill you, but no studio is going to paint the Army as bad guys who should be mowed down (regardless of how satisfying it was to do it in the game).
Skiddish Studios by Team RamRod	Oct 31st, 2006 12:08:19 PM
I think we're seeing the trickle-down effects of risky high-priced talent deals in Hollywood. It seems like the studios are getting more cautious in allowing projects to go forth with big up-front and especially back-end deals. It backfired for MI:III and KONG, where the movies did great business but not by the standard of profitability. With that said, it's a shame b/c this movie will kick ass once it's eventually made.
Bill Gates by blackwood	Oct 31st, 2006 12:09:19 PM
Name another richest man in the world who donates 40% of his wealth to a greater good. I used to be all up on the hate wagon our M$ Twitpin, but really, when it comes to mettle, he's decked to the nines. Anyway. N ever played Halo (Nintendo fan), but I'm bummed because Blomkamp shows a hell of a lot of promise. Dear Hollywood - maybe your coffers would be more full if you started taking smart risks, instead of repeating stupid mistakes. Did you know that film, among other things, is art? Did you know that there are people toiling in the industry underbelly who are, in fact, better than what you have, and maybe ever had? Hollywood, sweety, it's like this - you are becoming irrelevant. I mean, it's not like you were particularly relevant to begin with, but there was a time when distraction and craft, art and artifact, actors - real actors, not stars - met to produce moving images that edified as they entertained. That drew people in with artifice (which is in abundance now), but kept them coming back with meat. With guts. With blood in the veins. Not now. Now it is flash and secondary markets and trailers cut more cleverly than the films they pimp. You are hollow. You are a ghost of greatness. This is the way your industry ends - not with bang, but the sound of hands not clapping. Hmm. Apparently, I had something to say.
NachoAfricanAmerican by s00p3rm4n	Oct 31st, 2006 12:09:41 PM
Hey, don't call me a twat. I've got friends to do that. And also, that wasn't my point. My point was that books have something called "stories" in them. These videogame movies have no stories or meaningful characters. They are a series of unfortunate events with no lemony or snicket. I only brought Paul Verhoeven into the equation a) because I was drunk and Showgirls always makes me laugh when drunk and b) because anyone trying to make a shitty movie without a story will only end up trying to outdo something Verhoeven's already done, and better. Still, though, my point is valid. Adaptation of "established properties" (i.e. shit that's made people money already) has become 99% of the story property of Hollywood. It's no longer storytelling - it's regurgitation and profit margins. That said, it's always been that way. But at least they could play pretend about it before! And at least (as you so brightly pointed out, pfft) our pioneering "filmmakers" of yesteryear had books from which to work, with (again) storylines and actual characters. And not polygons. POLYGONS HAVE NO SOUL! Someone call the asshole with the "drum machines have no soul" bumper stickers! I've got a new mission of douchebaggery for him.
Enough of the bullshit!! by Simon Cabron	Oct 31st, 2006 12:13:30 PM
Bring on Yar's Revenge-The Movie!!!
The movie studios aren't retarded--the audiences are! by Bob Cryptonight	Oct 31st, 2006 12:18:03 PM
And the audience deserves a movie like this...BASED ON A GAME! Why not? You morons seem so excited about a movie BASED ON A TOY! Transformers? Give me a break! How about THE BIG WHEEL MOVIE? Why not a movie based on JC PENNEY's Spring Argyle Socks Sale? Or better yet...a movie based on a T.V. DINNER!!! Try to grow up a bit, kids!
Blame Blokamp? by DrTobiasFunke	Oct 31st, 2006 12:19:15 PM
Now, I've never seen any of this guy's work, but I can't help but think he's the reason why movie studios are so scared to invest in the film. If Peter Jackson or James Cameron were directing, they'd be able to pick any studio they wanted. Also, I'm thinking Microsoft may be asking for too much of the film's profits. That's just me though.
With so many big movies tanking I see their point by skiff	Oct 31st, 2006 12:26:54 PM
There needs to be a new review term and it should be HARMLESS not that a film sucks or is great but that it's HARMLESS. Film geeks are getting so jaded the if a movie isn't the next empire strikes back they stay away in droves.And then there are the real anal licking no name to low bunch who ripe them off torent sites.Someone said to me the other day that record companies are making more money now than they ever were. Ya like fuck Movies are heading in the same direction. Can you believe flags of our fathers made under 20 mill in 2 weeks. Man things are fucked up
aestheticity and anyone else who doesn't know HL by Novaman5000	Oct 31st, 2006 12:28:30 PM
There are tons of characters and a big story there, The first game had 4 episodes focusing on secondary characters for Christ's sake, so don't act like it's just one guy with a gun. I love both, but this is a HALO MOVIE TALKBACK. It's not like Peter Jackson was like, oh I'm going to make a Half-Life movie OR a Halo movie, but only one of them! Halo is the only film being considered here, so SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH THE COMPARISONS. IT'S FUCKING MOOT.
That last part wasn't for you guys, Aestheticity, by Novaman5000	Oct 31st, 2006 12:29:49 PM
It was for all these "HALF-LIFE IS BETTER" idiots. I love half-life, probably more than Halo to be honest, but it's totally pointless to bring it up here.
I would totally see that argyle sock movie. by Novaman5000	Oct 31st, 2006 12:34:01 PM
Riveting.
I just want to see a Half-Life movie by Lovecraftfan	Oct 31st, 2006 12:43:22 PM
That's all I want.
The good, the bad, and the just plain Ugly!!! by brit3424	Oct 31st, 2006 12:59:44 PM
SO they cancel the making of what could be a really great (for once) video-game movie like Halo, but consider remaking one of the worst movies in the Genre with Street Fighter???? WHY??? The Street Fighter generation has come and gone, but Halo is one of the top selling games in a very long time. Dumb move. They would probably have a better chance at remaking Mario Bros (to Studio Execs:I'm kidding about that last one)
I'm disappointed but optimistic by Ricky Henderson	Oct 31st, 2006 01:02:42 PM
They can still fix this once Halo 3 comes out and shows the studios what the real story is. Stop saying that videogames must necessarily make for bad movies. It's not true. I think the real failing of most game-to-movie projects is that the director simply doesn't know how to capture and translate the essence of the game itself. Before any director can accomplish that, they must know why the game is great for themselves. Having some schlep shop the idea to them and then reading thru a Prima guide just isn't going to hack it from a directorial standpoint. Now look specifically at Halo: its is a game that is truly great because it entwines much more than novel or well-founded gameplay mechanics. The story and how it’s told through gameplay is more than the mere sum of its parts- or it can be. Depending upon the scope of a game, everything from art direction, level design, and the soundtrack are all important factors in crafting the mood of a game, or how it make you feel when you play. With competent direction, sufficient budget, and an honest feel for the material, I think that movie adaptations of games could be considered more than the pitiful flops we’ve unfortunately come to expect from this genre. What are they thinking? If done properly, a decent Halo movie would make a huge amount of money, and Jackson needs to convince the studios of that.
Studio cuntrape by performingmonkey	Oct 31st, 2006 01:05:19 PM
Although it's fun to laugh at fanboys.
exlusivly on windows vista by JackDonkey	Oct 31st, 2006 01:08:23 PM
Did Microsoft want Halo movie to be Windows Vista only :P
wheew! That was close. by The Ghost of Marcus Brody	Oct 31st, 2006 01:09:45 PM
We almost saw another Doom-like Hollywood shitfest. Take your time Weta, shop around and take your time. It's not your fault the studios are fucking retarted.
If the Games are making more than the movies anyway-- by Fatboy_Roberts	Oct 31st, 2006 01:24:43 PM
WHY NOT JUST KEEP IT A GAME? What can we get out of the movie that you can't get out of playing a new GAME? I don't understand why this has to be a movie in the first place if being a game is working so well.
Yar's Revenge would own you all!! by Simon Cabron	Oct 31st, 2006 01:27:00 PM
somebody get to work on this already, has Oscar written all over it!!
Eat it, fanboys - halo sucks and the movie would bomb by Dannychico	Oct 31st, 2006 01:28:03 PM
it was a terrible investment
PJ and Halo =overrated by batzilla	Oct 31st, 2006 01:34:03 PM
Seriously. PJ is a worthless piece of shit as well as Halo. PJ's KK was a joke and LOTR was average at best. Why Halo is so popular is mind boggling. I'm happy that this project got the axe. It would have been yet another over-hyped turd.
If Bungie Wanted Quality Over Profit... by ryanislyin	Oct 31st, 2006 01:34:30 PM
...they'd have let Halo remain a PC title. The first version was for the far superior home computer. It wasn't until Mr. Gates lured them away with big bucks to give the XBox legitimacy. Can't say I blame them, really. When it comes down to it, the big mistake isn't whether the studios are idiots or Peter's choice of director. The mistake is assuming any property in ANY media form can be converted to a movie. The Lord of the Rings was a perfect storm of talent, direction and financing, backed by bulletproof source material. Tell me: Does Halo OR HalfLife have either of these? 1) Neil made a pretty slick short film, but do you think it took even 1/10th the skill Peter displayed getting LOTR to market? 2) Even if they hired every multi-million dollar actor (and actress... is that PC?) available, the stories still lack character development. Sure, Peter and Fran can write well, but their major successes were a) based on previously successful material, and b) edited heavily by people that saw past their tendancies to carry on (extended editions, anybody?). 3) Finally, why would any INVESTOR (and that's what this is, people... an investment) want to put their bet on a film genre with a bad history, no source material outside of a video game, and a rookie director? You guys think Hollywood exists to entertain. It doesn't. It exists to get your money. Wake up!
If Bungie Wanted Quality Over Profit... by ryanislyin	Oct 31st, 2006 01:37:04 PM
...they'd have let Halo remain a PC title. The first version was for the far superior home computer. It wasn't until Mr. Gates lured them away with big bucks to give the XBox legitimacy. Can't say I blame them, really. When it comes down to it, the big mistake isn't whether the studios are idiots or Peter's choice of director. The mistake is assuming any property in ANY media form can be converted to a movie. The Lord of the Rings was a perfect storm of talent, direction and financing, backed by bulletproof source material. Tell me: Does Halo OR HalfLife have either of these? 1) Neil made a pretty slick short film, but do you think it took even 1/10th the skill Peter displayed getting LOTR to market? 2) Even if they hired every multi-million dollar actor (and actress... is that PC?) available, the stories still lack character development. Sure, Peter and Fran can write well, but their major successes were a) based on previously successful material, and b) edited heavily by people that saw past their tendancies to carry on (extended editions, anybody?). 3) Finally, why would any INVESTOR (and that's what this is, people... an investment) want to put their bet on a film genre with a bad history, no source material outside of a video game, and a rookie director? You guys think Hollywood exists to entertain. It doesn't. It exists to get your money. Wake up!
Double Post by ryanislyin	Oct 31st, 2006 01:37:29 PM
Sorry!
ryanislyin by blackwood	Oct 31st, 2006 01:41:23 PM
I don't think anyone is asleep. And if Hollywood's sole defining purpose is to make itself money, then it is entirely worthless - like any industry where profit comes before product or people. Sure, it's ignorant to say that money isn't important, but it's even more-so to say that quality should be a secondary concern.
Hey newclassic im from Cape Town myself . anyhoo by southafrican	Oct 31st, 2006 01:51:30 PM
i agree that the studios are being careful and clever here, besides Fox already has greenlit a mega budget science fiction epic, its called Avatar. And its to be directed by James(science fiction master) Cameron, you know someone with an impressive and (this is key)proven track record of making mega budget films that make shitloads of cash. As opposed to an (and i cant just support the man because he is a fellow South African )unproven director with a mega budget making a film in a genre with an absolutely god awful artistic and commercial track record. Cameron has stated that he is going to make Avatar and Battle Angel Alita back to back, and he plans to make both into trilogies, so Fox is already pretty heavily invested and there is the potential here for 2 amazing epic sci-fi franchises. And if youve read the sriptment to Avatar that was floating around the internet several years ago, trust me its your balls to the wall, original science fiction epic with some pretty jaw dropping action. And while Jacksons great he is only producing, and lets remembe that even Cameron, Spielburg and Lucas have all produced shit, so there really are no gaurantees. And i bet it did not help that king kong underperformed.
master kenobi by slappy jones	Oct 31st, 2006 01:56:17 PM
you seem to like blaming this all on the studios wanting to stay away from jackson...lets remember he wasn't directing this thing. In fact the thing would probably be going ahead if he was....I love how people like to use king kongs supposed failure against jackson like thats it for his career..haha yeah i mean hell his past 4 films have all made over 500 million ww...not even speilberg has four in a row that did that..shit it must be all over for him!!...did kong underperform at the BO compared to the ridiculous expectation placed upon it by the media yes...in all reality a 3 hour film about a rampaging giant ape fighting dinosaurs makes over 500 mill then no. sounds quite reasonable...look superman returns cost more and made much less so if singer can get another job i really don't think jackson is going to have a problem. I do like how a lot of guys who abuse jackson on here have names like darth something or, well, master kenobi. are you still a little sore that the prequels are possibly 3 of the most embarrassing films ever made? you think kong failed on every level..umm..have you actaully watched the prequels?? they are so bad my urine burns just thinking about them.
Universal has the money by ubersnarf	Oct 31st, 2006 02:12:17 PM
I'm shocked that no one' mentioned Universal's current $200 million budgeted movie: Evan Almighty? The highest budgeted comedy? Of course, the mad money they're spending on that might make them hesitant to dip their toes into the Halo world, but at least we know they're capable of spending that budget. They clearly just don't want to. And Microsoft can't spend the money on making a stupid movie because their shareholders would flip out. Honestly, people. If the movie gets made, it gets made via Hollywood studios. So either go see Evan Almighty so that Universal gets their $200 mil back and can make Halo, or boycott Evan Almighty because Universal wasted all that money on a stupid comedy sequel and not on your precious video game movie.
The first Halo had a story? by Flip63Hole	Oct 31st, 2006 02:35:24 PM
You're joking, right? Some very young kids get introduced to a derivative FPS and think its the cat's ass; look into the classics - the original Unreal had already been made many, many years before - much better, same thing; guy in suit kills aliens - mix and repeat. One thing to also consider; Halo was the most repetitive FPSs ever made. How many times are several maps repeated ? I lost count. Is the plot like Groundhog's Day where our characters are stuck in the same situation every day? MS was very pressed for time - it shows. So if you're young, unknowledgeable about the history of video games and your intro to games was on the X-Box, then Halo may have seemed OK, at best. Worst FPS ever made? No. But not much to really say about it. Guys in spacesuits kill little aliens. Wow. Would've been a great movie.
Well, Halo's only popular for one reason... by DigitalDong	Oct 31st, 2006 02:54:21 PM
It was the only game for the Xbox worth getting for a year and a half until KotOR came out. But fuck Halo, the Metal Gear Solid franchise deserves a movie more. Cast Kurt Russel as Snake and I'm there.
Halo/Microsoft/DVD/Blu-ray/HD by greengreedo	Oct 31st, 2006 02:57:52 PM
Problem: Microsoft & Universal support HD-DVD, the other studios support Blu-Ray DVD. Result: Conflict of interest in eventual method of distribution for a film in the next year or two. Dollars rule, boyo's!
Not the studios fault by Hail	Oct 31st, 2006 03:00:37 PM
microsoft and wingnut are asking for too much money. The Studios basically said that there is too much cost, and not enough profit for this to be produced. Seriously, how many time do 2 studios have to combinge their finances to fund a $150 million film? Obviously, never. Otherwise we would see two studios attached to X3, King Kong, Superman Returns, Batman, Spiderman, etc.... All of which cost way more than $150 million. Think about it.
PARAMOUNT???? by WONKABAR	Oct 31st, 2006 03:06:06 PM
Yeah, those guys are real visionary....risk-takers....LO L!
Bill Gates the Humanitarian Philanthropist... by anchorite	Oct 31st, 2006 03:10:15 PM
Never mind that it's also a huge way for him to avoid paying taxes... Any time people like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates become philanthropic, you have to know there's a financial reason behind it - one that covers their asses. That said, I would rather see the money go to help AIDS in Africa than to build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. If they can keep their money out of the hands of the US government, more power to them. Of course, someday they may end up making direct to video movies with Wesley Snipes in an African country with no extradition laws. Oh well. Look on the bright side: maybe we won't have to be subjected to Blade 4 now with Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen, Kal Penn and Jon Heder.
Metroid Prime= BEST GAME OF THIS GEN by Exeter	Oct 31st, 2006 03:13:30 PM
of the gc/ps2/xbox generationn, Metroid Prime is the crown jewel, at gamerankings.com it's the highest ranked. Play it
hey now anchorite by ubersnarf	Oct 31st, 2006 03:22:28 PM
A Blade 4 with Kal Penn and Jon Heder sounds pretty darn good actually! I mean, compared the Trinity anyway...
Less money doesn't mean the flick would have sucked. by lazynogoodnic	Oct 31st, 2006 03:36:20 PM
Halo's halfway decent. I'm sure it would have been a decent film, if not good. But man, studios not wanting to give them the huuuuge damn budget they demanded isn't hard to sympathize with. No movie needs as much money as the creative team seemed to believe. They could have made this flick for less, and had it made to the same quality. Exorbetant amounts of cash don't make good films, a steady directing hand does.
Phategod2 VS PharteGod by Phategod2	Oct 31st, 2006 03:41:24 PM
Don, Don , Don don't you have anything better to do with your time I guess you caught me I dont usually post on the TB's unless its Tranformers related. you were probably stalking me weren't you. You truly are a sad excuse for a hollywood personality and guess what don seeing as how this is not siebertron I do not hav to watch what I say and dont think a little cutting and pasting will have any ramifications over there. this is AICN country you little Bitch so you suck it up first of all I read your little Tirade on the actress who didn't want to be in your suckball movie you my friend are a sad individual your low brow cromagnum moron, and you bring shame to anyone associated with the film making progress, the city you come from, America, and Human beings. Now if that is not Don Murphy and I doubt that it's not then you are one his "Stooges" which is probably the only thing lower then Don Murphy his self.
METROID PRIME NOT IMHO by Phategod2	Oct 31st, 2006 03:46:25 PM
Wetroid prime was a great game but it had flaws 1. No real story there was no voice acting no real cutscenes just shoot everything and gain new abilities. 2. The control scheme sucked. Im going to say what i think the best game this generation was because regardless of how many awards or magazine or website countdowns its still Opinion.
Yeah, but you have to have Mary Kate & Ashley, too... by anchorite	Oct 31st, 2006 03:48:21 PM
They're part of the package deal through WMA.
The Hobbit by silent 1	Oct 31st, 2006

Talkbacks

Bad News. HALO a No-Go... aka Why are the studios retarded?