Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fox And Universal Say Goodbye To Halo Movie

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the series-of-unfortunate-events dept.

310

Master_of_Tumbleweeds writes "20th Century and Universal Pictures, the two studios that agreed to co-finance the film adaptation of Microsoft's Halo video game, have abruptly pulled out of the project. This leaves executive producers Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh without financing or distribution. A ballooning budget (rumored to have been closing in on the $200 Mil mark) and apparent lack of confidence in rookie feature film director Neill Blomkamp are being named the major culprits for Fox and Universal's decision."

cancel ×

310 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

other factors (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16515733)

I would imagine the whole "partnering" with Microsoft thing to be a factor, too.

Re:other factors (4, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515927)

I would imagine the whole "partnering" with Microsoft thing to be a factor, too.

Why do you imagine that? Because Microsoft can't make, supply, or be shrewdly involved in entertainment-related material like Halo? Or because you don't like MS, and it feels good to say that? What's your actual thinking, and why is this +1 "informative" anyway?

I don't agree!! (3, Insightful)

TrisexualPuppy (976893) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516313)

Let's use some crazy gorilla math. Alive in Joburg is about 6 minutes long. Make it 90 or 120 minutes long, and you've got twenty times the budget. (Mind you, I'm using crazy gorilla math). I don't think that short film cost $10 million. Hell, I doubt it even cost $200,000. I think if they worked on a budget first (say, $75 million), and then worked backwards from there, they can still have a great product.

Now, a budget of $200 million is a lot for any movie. Jackson's King Kong barely broke even, so he doesn't exactly have a perfect track record.

Was I the only one who was thoroughly impressed with Mr. Blomkamp's short film Alive in Joburg [google.com] ? I thought it was a nice mix of sci-fi and realism and would love to see more movies blending that style.

Please don't make the movie three hours long. I wouldn't be able to take it all in, HEH!

I'd call this a smart move. (4, Insightful)

manno (848709) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515737)

At .2 billion, I can't blame them.

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (5, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515861)

To put this into perspective:

- Batman Begins was estimated at $150,000,000
- The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was estimated at $93,000,000
- The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was estimated at $94,000,000
- The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was estimated at $94,000,000
- King Kong was estimated at $207,000,000
- Star Wars Episode III was estimated at $113,000,000
- X-Men 3 was estimated at $210,000,000

Long story short, Jackson would have to prove that a video game movie would appeal to a wide enough audience to justify comparing it to King Kong and X-Men 3. Considering that video game movies always do poorly, I can see why the studios don't believe him.

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (1)

Analein (1012793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515949)

Long story short, Jackson would have to prove that a video game movie would appeal to a wide enough audience to justify comparing it to King Kong and X-Men 3.
Yeah. Why should comic adaptions beat video game adaptions in terms of estimated audience? It's not like those genres share the same geeky fanboys.

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (4, Insightful)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516021)

There's a difference though. The geeks that grew up with many of the comics that have recently been turned into movies are in their 20s and 30s (or older) and are gainfully employed. Many (but not all) of the geeks who grew up with Halo are still in their teens.

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (5, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516439)

Yeah, and it's not like Teens go to the movie theaters or anything. Or buy merchandise. In fact, that's why no company anywhere gears their advertising towards teens. It would make no sense, since they don't have any money!

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (5, Informative)

PhilipMckrack (311145) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516235)

Because by the time they budgeted X-Men 3, it was pretty well established it would be a success. The budget for X-Men 1 was $75 million. They are comparing Halo to Doom and Mortal Kombat. Following are worldwide gross amounts for a sample of comic and video game movies. Video game movies can be made to be profitable, but $200 million for a budget is very risky.

Spiderman gross: $821,706,375
Spiderman 2 gross: $783,924,485
X-Men gross: $295,999,717
X-Men 2 gross: $406,400,513
X-Men 3 gross: $455,360,014
Hulk gross: $225,600,000
Daredevil: $179,143,518

Doom gross: $54,612,337
Mortal Kombat: $122,133,227
Tomb Raider: $274,644,183
Tomb Raider 2: $156,453,758

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (5, Funny)

Drizzt Do'Urden (226671) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516405)

What you can see here is that Big Boobs Works(TM)

i have to disagree with you somewhat. (4, Interesting)

adam (1231) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516019)

Video game movies do not always do well.. but they don't, "always do poorly," as you've stated. Sure, Doom barely broke even after dvd/vhs rental (yet they're making a second [last I heard].. so that says something). But Tomb Raider grossed $131M in the US alone, with another $60M in rental market (plus foreign box office, merchandising, etc). With a production budget of $80M, that's a nifty return. I do agree with you though, the $141M budget that the article quotes is quite excessive for the genre. When examining whether it will be profitable you have to look at many things, and just being a video game movie isn't enough to doom you (no pun intended) to failure.

If you look at the current trend, it seems that video game movies are getting pretty popular. Comic book movies have become insanely popular in the last 5-8 yrs and it seems to me virtually anything comic book related at all gets automatic greenlight nowadays (GHOST RIDER? I'd never even heard of this comic before I saw the trailer-- granted, i am not a comic fan, but certainly part of the draw of comic movies is a base association with a variety of users beyond just hardcore fans). Anyway, I digress, my point is simply, maybe executives are seeing some possibilities/trends in video game movies, --at least this is my conclusion based off the number that are slated for production currently..

the list below was shamelessly poached from a wikipedia list i found, and then edited to remove probably 10-15 video games i don't recognize [see last paragraph for my reasoning behind this]

* Castlevania (2007)
* Doom 2 (TBA)
* Driver (2006)
* Duke Nukem: The Movie (TBA)
* Far Cry (2008)
* Halo (2008)
* Max Payne (2007)
* MechWarrior (TBA)
* Metal Gear Solid (2008)
* Metroid (2006)
* Mortal Kombat: Devastation (2007)
* Pac-Man (2007)
* Perfect Dark (2008)
* Quake (TBA)
* Resident Evil: Extinction (2007)
* Resident Evil 4 (2007)
* Return to Castle Wolfenstein (TBA)
* Splinter Cell (2006)
* Tekken (2007)
* Tomb Raider III (TBA)
* Untitled WarCraft Project (2008)

So, anyway, for the most part, I agree with you.. they have their work cut out for them, but I believe is the storyline does its own thing (And doesn't stick too much to the exact game), with Jackson behind it, it could do quite well.

Also, as an aside, I have you "friended" on /., and do thoroughly enjoy reading most of your comments. This is the first time i've had the chance to reply to a "friend," since I mostly lurk (and generally only post in articles relating to digital cinema, or film stuff.. since that is what I do). Keep up the good comments ;)

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516189)

To put this in a better perspective....

Doom the movie $60 million.

it sucked hard... so hard that people walking past the theatre were pulled up against the doors of the theatre it was playing in causing lots of extra work by theatre staff to pull partons off the doors while it ran.

DVD sales were dismal, and most Sci-fi and gaming fans hate it as well.

All other video game movies sucked as well, so going into this most everyone can see that it was pretty much a wash and was getting horribly over priced for what it was and had potential to make.

$200 million for a campy B movie that would only be good fodder for the upcoming MST4K series that will be reborn in about 5 years....

I can understand why. and honestly I dont understand why directors and producers that propose a videogame movie are not beaten to death by the studios.... I dont care how good you are, Halo the movie??? I'd rather see Half Life the movie, and even then only if there is lots of crowbar action on headcrabs.

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516219)

$200 million for a campy B movie that would only be good fodder for the upcoming MST4K series that will be reborn in about 5 years....


And I can't wait!

T. Servo

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (1)

remembertomorrow (959064) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515867)

Hell, they could have bought Youtube! What were they thinking?!

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (4, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515889)

At .2 billion, I can't blame them.

I can do better than that:

At .0002 trillion, I can't blame them.

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (4, Funny)

Reverend528 (585549) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516027)

.2 billion

Most of that budget was going towards film. After all, this was going to be the first movie shot entirely in slow motion.

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (2, Funny)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516149)

Thought that was Baywatch: The Movie, which got Pamela Anderson her acting Oscar.

Re:I'd call this a smart move. (5, Informative)

FofR (697088) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516059)

I should point out that the $200m mark is a rumor and Kamins, the representative for Peter Jackson and Fran stated: "The only budget the filmmakers ever spoke about was $145 million less the 12.5% rebate that you get from shooting in New Zealand, which would put it at about $128 million. That was the only number that was ever discussed."

For more details I suggest heading to http://halomovie.trivialbeing.net/ [trivialbeing.net] where they have a video/news broadcast and some footage of Jackson's response.

As an aside, they quote: "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."

What huh? (5, Funny)

iolaus (704845) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515749)

Did I read that right? Did the movie studios just make a good decision?

Well... (1)

twoallbeefpatties (615632) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516003)

Fox and Universal, coming off a long season of shitty movies run by shitty directors, suddenly decide that it would be a bad idea to make a sci-fi epic with a potentially large cult audience, with the backing of one of the modern era's most successful names in fantasy epics... because they think the director's a newbie. Boy, smart move, there.

Re:Well... (1)

DingerX (847589) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516251)

Heh. You know, huge sci-fi films don't always make bank, and well, video game titles may give you success, but brand awareness in the vid field does not directly translate into box-office sales. Besides, Microsoft from the start has tried to "play" Hollywood with their Halo title. So maybe this is Hollywood's way of saying "You don't play a player".

And what kinda spoiled rich kid gets a $200M budget as his first real job? And do you really think he would do a good job? I mean, look at the president of the US!

Re:What huh? (5, Funny)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516063)

> Did I read that right? Did the movie studios just make a good decision?

They left out the most important bit of news - Fox and Universal have now gone to Uwe Boll to get the movie made.

Re:What huh? (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516169)

They left out the most important bit of news - Fox and Universal have now gone to Uwe Boll to get the movie made.

Careful, he might challenge you to a boxing match. I hear he throws a mean punch. :-P

Re:What huh? (3, Funny)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516337)

Did I read that right? Did the movie studios just make a good decision?

Yes. Rest assured their lawyers are working diligently on who to sue so such a good decision never happens again.

weee (0, Flamebait)

Neotrantor (597070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515753)

thank god, maybe they'll cancel the other peices of shit that should never get made but we'll probably see hours of commercials and custom ipods made for...

$200 million-couldn't have anything to do with it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16515755)

Maybe this is in fact the first glimpse of sanity in the $$ bloated film world, We can hope

Odd (4, Interesting)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515759)

Seems like an odd choice considering Peter Jackson's track record with making money (LoTR, King Kong) and the popularity of Halo.

Re:Odd (1)

JBHarris (890771) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515835)

Seems like an odd choice considering Peter Jackson's track record with making money (LoTR, King Kong) and the popularity of Halo.
Good Game != Good Movie

Doom, Mario Bros, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, RE2, I could go on. These where great games, but the movies sucked. Even though Halo was a fantastic game with a well written script & plot, 90% of the game was the same thing over & over. Shoot, hunt, shoot, hide, repeat. Doesn't make for a good movie.

Brad

Re:Odd (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515877)

Oh wait a sec, I said it seemed like an "odd" choice, I never said "bad" choice. I agree with you totally, it's just history shows that most movies are made with little thought and a lot of money.

Re:Odd (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16515997)

It didn't make for a good game either.

Re:Odd (2, Insightful)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516327)

You're forgetting the part where the Halo games actually had a worthwhile plot, in addition to a substantial amout of backstory and a series of execlently written books and graphic novels. you can't say that about Doom, Mario Bros, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, or RE2.

Re:Odd (1)

hador_nyc (903322) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516347)

Good Game != Good Movie Doom, Mario Bros, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, RE2, I could go on. These where great games, but the movies sucked. Even though Halo was a fantastic game with a well written script & plot, 90% of the game was the same thing over & over. Shoot, hunt, shoot, hide, repeat. Doesn't make for a good movie.

Yeah, I loved the Wing Commander series, but have you seen the movie? Ugh!

Re:Odd (1)

Bandman (86149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515855)

I'd say the odd choice was for Jackson and Walsh to produce this.

Re:Odd (2, Informative)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515913)

Peter Jackson isn't behind it, he's "co-executive producer" which pretty much means he was like "Wow, I like Halo...awesome, let me attach my name to this movie." It's not like he's directing it or had anything to do with the screenplay.

Re:Odd (4, Insightful)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516159)

"Wow, I like money...awesome, let me attach my name to this movie."

Fixed that for you.

Re:Odd (2, Insightful)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516217)

If producers had nothing to do with the end product, though, mentioning the names Berman and Braga to trekkies would be inconsequential rather than invoke frothing at the mouth.

He was only a producer in this one (4, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516023)

Peter Jackson's track record as a director is firmly established. However, as the submission said, he's not the director here. Slide Peter into the director's chair, and yes the equation does change.

You have to understand, Hollywood's track record with movies based on game adaptations is not good. So when you say "I'm going to make a movie based on a game" you are already starting in a hole. To dig out of the hole, you have to get a great script, a strong proven director, and reasonably good cast.

Then real hard part begins. You have to make sure the movie itself provides enough material to entertain fans of the game, stick to the over all idea of the original story, and then include enough quality to stand on a movie on it's own to draw in nonfans to make money. This is the hard part because while games don't typically require the same capital investment as movies (big name stars, directors, creative crew require much larger sums of money than your top notch game programmers).

I'm not saying Neil is bad, but he's not got Peter's reputation. Writing a script that can do all this is hard, and the IMDB link says they've changed scriptwriters at least once. They haven't dug out of the hole, and Fox looks like it's not going to take the risk.

If Peter looked like he had the same level of involvment in this project like he did in LotR, then this would be a great movie. It doesn't look like he does, and well he can't be perfect in all of his releases :) If it did come out bad, I'd rather it be axed now then damage his reputation later.

Glad (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16515769)

I for one am glad. They would just ruin the game by making a lame movie about.

Re:Glad (4, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515805)

Don't forget the lame videogame tie-in that would come out, too...

Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516015)

Peter Jackson is making a Halo videogame movie-tie-in.

Re:Glad (1)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516269)

You mean like Street Fighter: The Movie? [wikipedia.org]

The game based upon the movie based upon the game?

Re:Glad (1)

Dreddy Schwager (953226) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516107)

How would a bad movie ruin a good game that has already come out? It's not like the movie is going to go and tweak the gameplay mechanics.

dooms was great (3, Funny)

raffe (28595) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515773)

I played doom before halo. Doom rocked it was...wait....movie???? Doom the movie sucked!

Re:dooms was great (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516249)

The only good thing about the the Doom movie was the 'Rocks' attitude/camp.

Plus... (0, Redundant)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515781)

Plus movies made after video games aren't exactly destined to become classics.

Re:Plus... (1)

LilWolf (847434) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515817)

movies made after video games aren't exactly destined to become classics.

Well, maybe classic flops.

Re:Plus... (1)

Master Ben (811962) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515919)

tsk tsk. How soon you forget Super Mario Bros.

What I want to see... (3, Funny)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516129)

is a movie based on Free Cell. Think of the possibilities!!!

$200 million?! (4, Funny)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515791)

That film's going to be the most bloated Microsoft product yet!

Re:$200 million?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516163)

You haven't seen the new MS Office yet.

Re:$200 million?! (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516205)

You don't think it costs more than that to produce Windows XP or Windows Vista?

Culprits? (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515801)

"A ballooning budget (rumored to have been closing in on the $200 Mil mark) and apparent lack of confidence in rookie feature film director Neill Blomkamp are being named the major culprits for Fox and Universal's decision."

Surely it's "...major factors behind Fox and Universal's decision"?

Re:Culprits? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16515845)

Poorly edited article in general. Bungie is misspelled (they spelled it like the actual stretchy cord, not the way that the Bungie company spells it's name.

Also, from the last sentence, I'm sure people not familiar with Halo are wondering what the hell a "pace marine" is...

Second iteration... (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516123)

Looks like a cranky mod is getting "off topic" confused with "informative". The info certainly spurred me to find a more reliable source than The Guardian and I found this: http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=68 947 [eurogamer.net] . Those damned Wikipedians have also been beavering away: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_(film) [wikipedia.org] ... and I still couldn't find this putative "pace marine" anywhere.

Good Move (4, Funny)

vjmurphy (190266) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515813)

Spending 200 million on an untried director with a video-game property. Yep, I'd pull out quicker than you could say "Uwe Boll."

Re:Good Move (4, Funny)

ToxikFetus (925966) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516025)

Yep, I'd pull out quicker than you could say "Uwe Boll."
ooo-weee? oh-weee? you-vee? oh crap....

Re:Good Move (3, Informative)

Relyx (52619) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516121)

Except we are talking Neil Blomkamp here.

He's not exactly what I would call an "untried director." His background is in high-profile commercials, particularly ones featuring photoreal mecha such as the dancing Citroen transformer. His showreel [rokkit.tv] is very, very impressive (check out his documentary-style short film "Alive in Joburg".)

It has to be said... (5, Funny)

SethEaston (920552) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515821)

This movie was DOOMed from the begining!

Re:It has to be said... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16515897)

The cancellation set a QUAKE through Hollywood!

Recipe For Failure (2, Interesting)

Jekler (626699) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515827)

Trying to turn a game into a movie is destined to fail. Very few games are ever thought-out fully to the extent necessary for a complete story to be composed that will satisfy the masses. They're usually thought-out to the extent that a gamer in the mindset of "Whatever... what's next?" wants to comprehend.

When you turn a game into a movie, the person watching isn't just waiting to get to the next level/area/mission, they might actually be interested in what's going on.

Re:Recipe For Failure (2, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516433)

The problem isn't that games lack intricate plot. The fact of the matter is that interesting story developments come unexpectedly, and unexpected behaviors have a habit of making games unpredictable and therefore unplayable. Likewise, the most gripping of plot elements revolve around tortured interpersonal decision making. Unfortunatley, not only can you not enforce those decisions on the player, most of those decisions are completely impossible to simulate on a d-pad.

When working with games, you have to work within the medium. You wouldn't go to a stage production and complain that the special effects are weak.

That having been said, it is possible to translate a property from one medium to the other. They may not have enough plot right out of the box, but that's why you pay writers. Halo is essentially an amalgomation of Ridley Scott and Paul Verhoeven movies: Aliens, Starship Troopers, a little Robocop. They took what would work in the medium, stripped out the rest, filled in all of the holes with gameplay goodness, and polished, polished, polished. Just make Master Chief some sort of tortured semi robotic slave hero, out to save the universe because he's being forced to. Throw in a bunch of conflicted compatriots, a callously killing race of aliens which they're in some strange way saving from The Flood (which, in turn, is being saved from the Halo destruction of all things), and you have the basis for a plot.

So far most game movies have been turds. But considering the plot they had decided to shoot, and the skill with which they were shot, I'd be surprised if any of those directors could create something that wasn't terrible.

Who needs a big Halo movie? (5, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515833)

We've already got lots of little Halo movies [roosterteeth.com] which, I suspect, are far better than anything Hollywood could do with it.

Nothing to see here.. (1)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515841)

just normal "business" in the movie industry...

Why doesn't Microsoft Fund this? (4, Insightful)

9mm Censor (705379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515847)

The budget is pretty much petty cash for MS. And entering the entertainment business means they can influence the business even more, towards MS online distribution (less iTunes, more M(S)P3s Online), and compete even more with Sony to push them out of the console market, to help the XBox360.

Re:Why doesn't Microsoft Fund this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16515917)

Even if Microsoft funded it, they'd have to pay through the nose to get a major distributor to actually distribute the film to movie houses. Microsoft only likes a situation when they're beneficiary of limited access to a property (such as the Windows desktop). They don't like to be on the other end of that stick.

Don't worry, guys. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16515859)

No need to worry, everyone. This is Fox. I'm sure if enough of us buy the DVDs they'll realize their mistake and start making it again.

That sucks. (2, Interesting)

Skudd (770222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515893)

A lot of people would argue that turning a video game into a movie on the big screen isn't a good idea. I, however, feel as though the Halo storyline (at least from Halo #1) is adequate for a very impressive film.

I was looking forward to the release of the movie, and actually had intention to see it in the theaters. I guess that's a far-fetched idea, now.

Re:That sucks. (1)

JohnnyBigodes (609498) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516221)

That would be assuming that the story-to-movie conversion was done with the same ambience, character personality, etc.

As we all know from many many failed examples where the directors/whatever gutted or mutated the original work to fit their "vision", that barely ever happens. Just about the only "perfect" translation was Sin City. The rest are some few good efforts and a whole lot of terrible ones.

When will the studios, producers, and directors learn to leave the original stories and characters alone? Seems pretty straightforward logic to me: if the [comic/game] was successful, then it the original plot might (hint hint) have been just perfect as it was.

Even though I'd love to be proven wrong, every time that I see that comic X or game Y is going to be turned into a movie, I just cringe when imagining the predictable end result.

Re:That sucks. (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516255)

You might be interested in hearing that the fourth Halo book was recently released. And it's by Eric Nyland, the *good* author. (Sorry, but the novelization of the game SUCKED! The other two books were pretty good.)

Anyway, I'm disappointed, too. After seeing them in the video game, and described in the books, I'd really like to see what a million dollar budget could do with an Elite, or Hunter or Ghost or Banshee with plasma blaring. Love or hate the Halo game, you gotta love the character and vehicle designs.

They should've hired... (1)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515899)

Fox/Universal should've hired Uwe Boll to direct/write the movie. Then Halo would have, at least, been released. Although I'm not saying that the movie would've been any good because it's halo.

Actually, it would've been better if the guys from Red vs Blue worked on the movie. At least the movie would really be similar to the game.

They can do this? (1)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515901)

wow...

I always assumed that there were contracts and stuff that stoped them from just going "well, we changed our mind.... BYE!"

meh, some one else will pick it up. cmon it is a Jackson and Halo, 2 huge names, some one must be willing to bite.

note I am not a huge fan of Jackson, I only realy like the LotR movies, and I hate Halo, but still.

it is bound to make money.

Re:They can do this? (1)

AcidLacedPenguiN (835552) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516263)

s'pose this has something to do with the Halo game that Jackson is making? Or rather, that the Halo game Jackson is working on has something to do with the movie budgeting?

Dear God... (1)

poormanjoe (889634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515929)

...won't somone think of the children?!

Nonstarter (4, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515937)

Once they named Paris Hilton to play Cortana I knew the movie wouldn't make it.

love halo..hope it stays dead (1)

grapeape (137008) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515945)

Until I see a good video game based movie I would prefer they just leave Halo alone. The closest I have seen to a good video game movie was the original Mortal Combat and it wasnt exactly oscar material.

Re:love halo..hope it stays dead (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516237)

Well come on, there is good movies, and then there is Oscar material. If you go and see a video game movie and expect Oscar material, then you will always be disappointed.

Another point, as with all movies I go see these days, set your expectations low.

Movies would cost much less to produce ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16515973)

if the participants stopped living like kings.

Excessive affluence has cost us many great works.

Good riddance (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515987)

I find an ever increasing reduncancy between a videogame with hi-res state-of-the-art graphics, and a movie of such a game. There's a diminishing narrow gap between seeing such a movie, and the demo mode of the actual game. Let's see Peter Jackson work on something else, please.

Halo has an amazing story (1)

Hubbell (850646) | more than 7 years ago | (#16515993)

If anyone ever took the time to read the books as well as watch the cutscenes in both games, they are very well done and the backstory of Halo lends it to being very easily turned into a motion picture that won't suck.

Re:Halo has an amazing story (1)

casualsax3 (875131) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516127)

There's a new book coming out this month by the way - http://www.amazon.com/Ghosts-Onyx-Halo-Eric-Nylund /dp/0765315688/sr=8-1/qid=1161355557/ref=pd_bbs_1/ 102-4236142-5637722?ie=UTF8&s=books [amazon.com]

The other books about Nylund were excellent - so I'm very much looking forward to this one.

Re:Halo has an amazing story (1)

jscheelmtsu (955511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516365)

DOOM had amazing books as well, but nobody bothered to read them before making a movie either.

Am I the only one with confidence (3, Interesting)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516017)

Was I the only one who was thoroughly impressed with Mr. Blomkamp's short film Alive in Joburg [google.com] ? I thought it was a nice mix of sci-fi and realism and would love to see more movies blending that style.

Now, a budget of $200 million is a lot for any movie. Jackson's King Kong barely broke even, so he doesn't exactly have a perfect track record.

But, let's use some crazy gorilla math. Alive in Joburg is about 6 minutes long. Make it 90 or 120 minutes long, and you've got twenty times the budget. (Mind you, I'm using crazy gorilla math). I don't think that short film cost $10 million. Hell, I doubt it even cost $200,000. I think if they worked on a budget first (say, $75 million), and then worked backwards from there, they can still have a great product.

Just don't make the movie three hours long. Please.

"Broke Even", eh? (4, Informative)

MrChom (609572) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516153)

King Kong did not "barely break even", it's the 36th highest grossing film of all time with nearly $400m of profit to its name. The only way it could have been classed as break even is if you looked at US gross only without DVD sales.

Re:Am I the only one with confidence (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516443)

Just watched it, it is a great film.

Short films have many advantages over feature films. They don't have to keep the viewer entertained as long, the plot is simple if it exists at all, character development isn't important, you can get away with dodgy scenes.

Still, I am interested if he can escape from the usual hollywood crap.

Good news all round then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516043)

One of the basic rules for a happy cinema experience is never, ever, ever go and see a movie based on a computer game. There has never been one that wasn't a complete turkey. When Tomb Raider the movie came out (a fine example of a post content movie) you could smell the Brussels sprouts from two streets away. One less example of the genre can only possibly be a good thing. Plus it's a Microsoft project that looks like it won't see the light of day. Two major plus points in one news story.

Office on the Big Screen (4, Funny)

the_last_tmnt (1014855) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516053)

Meanwhile, talks with Miramax still continue on the upcoming Office 2003 movie adaptation.

Re:Office on the Big Screen (3, Funny)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516131)

...with a working title of "Office Space".

People Forget - Halo was inspired by a book (4, Insightful)

stevedcc (1000313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516067)

Ok, so I know he isn't published in the USA, but Halo was at least partly inspired (http://marathon.bungie.org/Story/halo_culture.htm l [bungie.org] ) by an Iain M Banks book, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Consider-Phlebas-Iain-Bank s/dp/1857231384 [amazon.co.uk] ). I think this means that comparison's with films like DOOM is kind of unfair. Btw, Iain M Banks is one of the best sci fi authors alive. If you don't believe me, read it. An awesome book. Steve Crawford

So much for a game movie that doesn't suck (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516095)

Rats. I'd sort of figured that Halo stood a chance of being the "First computer game to movie adaptation that didn't completely stink". It's got a workable story and good characters, at least by sci-fi/action movie standards.

Oh well, life goes on. I suppose what I'd really like to see instead of a Halo movie would be a movie based on Marathon. It's got massive colony ships, heroic cyborgs, unknown hostile aliens, and an insane AI. What more do you want?

Re:So much for a game movie that doesn't suck (1)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516215)

wow, now I really need to go grab a copy of Marathon....

your random description reminded me WAY to much of System Shock 2! Heh, though there was one thing that SS2 has that Marathon aparently does not. Psyonics!

Thank goodness (1)

Cisko Kid (987514) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516099)

Most movies that are based on video games bomb. Look at Doom, Mario Brothers or Wing Commander. The only one that I sort of liked was Silent Hill.

No! Now Uwe Boll can pick it up... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16516135)

and create another horrible "masterpiece" that'll hit the $2 "please take it away from us" shelves.

I don't get it (4, Funny)

tygerstripes (832644) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516155)

Why don't they trust Peter Jackson to make this work? I mean, LotR wasn't a great game, but what a movie he made out of it!

I've heard talk of book-adaptations, but that's just par for the course.

thin material (1)

Warlock7 (531656) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516167)

Well, it's about time that somebody wakes up and realizes that the storyline of a video game is too thin to be attempting to base a feature length presentation on it. Perhaps the first Half-Life could be reasonable adapted, but that game was more about the story than the game in the first place.

What about Anime? (1)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516177)

I'd rather see Halo as an Anime series.

good plan (1, Insightful)

syrinx (106469) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516197)

Considering Halo (and the whole XBox, really) was designed to appeal to people who had never played games before (as Penny Arcade put it once, the "drunken frat fuck"), and therefore thought things that had appeared in other games years before were suddenly "innovative", I don't think it would work out as a movie, since I think the market of "people who have never seen movies before" is rather limited.

This is just like Transformers. (1)

JoshDM (741866) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516201)

Spielburg's name is attached, but who is directing the movie?

Michael Bay.

Halo = Ringworld (1)

farrellj (563) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516293)

I am guessing that Larry Niven's lawyers finally contacted them...If you have read the Ringworld books by Niven, and the other Known Space books, then played the games, you will see there is enough similarities between Halo/Halo 2 that it would make investors twitchy.

ttyl
          Farrell

This Is Terrible (2, Funny)

thedbp (443047) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516309)

I don't understand how they could have done this.

Now the world will be deprived of another in a long line of well-acted, brilliantly-written, and plot-heavy movies based on video games. After Doom and Super Mario Brothers, I thought it was obvious that all the major advancements in cinema were being made in films that exist as a footnote to a video game franchise.

THe world is now deprived of the incredibly complex artistic vision that would have been a movie based on a first-person shooter. Just think of all the philosophical and political discussions this movie could have motivated if it had come to fruition.

I, for one, am saddened and disheartened by this stunning loss to western culture.

top 10 movies based on video games (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#16516351)

Final Fantasy VII - Advent Children
Final Fantasy - The Spirits Within
Final Fantasy X-2
Doom
Doom 3
Bloodrayne
BloodRayne 2
Resident Evil (Special Edition) / Resident Evil - Apocalypse
Resident Evil 4
Alone in the Dark
Full (?) list here... [amazon.com]

...is TRON really supposed to be on that list?

Actually, the movie was stopped because MS wanted internet dist. rights and the rest of the group had already made a deal w/iTMS :)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?