Fox And Universal Say Goodbye To Halo Movie

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."

Comments

Odd

[otacon]

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

i have to disagree with you somewhat.

[adam]

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 don't agree!!

[BewireNomali]

I don't remember an instance where a director without a widely released feature was giventhis amount of money to direct a film. It's a coup for him, but investors run from that.

directors are to film what executives are to corporations. For the most part - they impart a vision, manage the process, and assemble an exemplary team for the various departments. having peter jackson behind him mitigates risk, and assures that the teams involved will be top notch. but if the director doesn't inspire confidence - then the trickle-down is obvious.

i'm surprised they hung around this long. in my experience, private investors would not have risked 10 million on a first time feature director. i say this being an analyst who analyzes film properties for private investors.

The flags:

-known property (previously widely released IP - or one of several profitable genres: horror, black/urban, youth comedy; the foregoing are the most profitable genres of feature film).
-attached talent (A-list, etc/respective to the genre).
-director's track record (box office/public perception).
-budget.

It should be understood that the feature film industry is about making movies with other people's money. So whoever these studios are dealing with probably just weren't satisfied with the guy to dole out that kind of cash. I don't blame them.

Sci-fi films mitigate risk by using the Japanese market as a buffer; american sci-fi films tend to do well there. in this instance though - because of the cultural backlash in Japan over the X-Box business itself - there is a risk of not being able to monetize this market and this is a huge risk of exposure, especially because data indicates a slight contraction of the US moviegoing audience.

Overall, this would be a strong pass, especially considering the track record for game movies.

I do however, think this film is going to do very well. I just couldn't advise anyone to get in at these prices.