Slashdot Mirror
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."
At .2 billion, I can't blame them.
Did I read that right? Did the movie studios just make a good decision?
I find laziness to be an excellent motivator.
Seems like an odd choice considering Peter Jackson's track record with making money (LoTR, King Kong) and the popularity of Halo.
In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
That film's going to be the most bloated Microsoft product yet!
Summation 2
Don't forget the lame videogame tie-in that would come out, too...
This guy's the limit!
Spending 200 million on an untried director with a video-game property. Yep, I'd pull out quicker than you could say "Uwe Boll."
Vincent J. Murphy
Spandex Justice
This movie was DOOMed from the begining!
We've already got lots of little Halo movies which, I suspect, are far better than anything Hollywood could do with it.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
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.
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?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Once they named Paris Hilton to play Cortana I knew the movie wouldn't make it.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
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.
/., 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 ;)
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
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
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.
:) If it did come out bad, I'd rather it be axed now then damage his reputation later.
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
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Meanwhile, talks with Miramax still continue on the upcoming Office 2003 movie adaptation.
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) by an Iain M Banks book, http://www.amazon.co.uk/Consider-Phlebas-Iain-Bank s/dp/1857231384). 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
todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
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.
I've heard talk of book-adaptations, but that's just par for the course.
Meta will eat itself
Space Invaders-
Plot- Orderly flying aliens destroy New York City, floor by floor.
Stars- Jackie Chan, Shaquille O'Neal and love interest Paris Hilton.
Scene Take-
Shaq: Jackie, [mumble] aliens [mumble] have to [mumble] Wall Street.
(Jackie Chan begins climbing UN Building, swinging from flag to flag.)
Paris: I think the aliens are hot.
Breakout-
Plot- After construction fraud results in shoddy construction at a maximum security prison, a pair of wrongly convicted prisoners plot their escape on the handball court.
Stars- The Rock, Nicholas Cage, Dave Chapelle (who dies during the escape) and Bill Mahr as the bumbling warden.
Scene Take-
Chapelle: Are you two stupid? You don't think anyone's going to notice you knocking the damn back wall down? Forget this! I'm gonna go see if the warden needs any more weed.
The Rock: I don't want to do this, but the Warden's left me no other choice.
Nicholas Cage stares out window intently.
(Meanwhile in the Warden's office)
Mahr (on phone): New Rule! If the prisoners have multiple life terms, they must attend the buddhist prayer services, so they will come back here in their next life too!
Asteroids-
Plot: A giant asteroid is heading towards Earth and the only hope is a crack team of oil drillers.
Stars: Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck and love interest Liv Tyler with Steve Buschemi as the lovable freak.
Scene- Oh wait, never mind....
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
I think you're the one dividing things. Parent was talking about the "GAMING DIVISION".
Which is a red herring, which is why I called him on it. As has been talked to death, here, it's the hardware sales piece of that division that's always in the red. They do great on the titles. Hell, Flight Simulator alone is a cash cow.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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.
un burrito me trampeó.
IIRC Peter Jackson did nothing major or good for that matter before taking the reigns of a little movie trilogy called "Lord of the Rings".
I would have hoped the studios would have more faith in Jackson being a producer than worrying about the fame of the director.