Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on October 20, 2006, 04:33:49 am
-
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/10/20/game-over-for-halo-movie/
Both Universal and Fox Studios have pulled out of the Halo movie adaptation, citing rising movie costs and concern over the inexperience of first time director Neil Blomkamp. As the budget was rumored to be edging closer to $200 million, and Microsoft getting a lion's share of the profits, the studio execs decided it was time to pull the plug.
It's hard to argue with the logic on this one, based on the director alone. While Peter Jackson is executive producing, Neil Blomkamp doesn't have one feature film to his name, having only been a 3D animator on TV shows like Smallville and Stargate, and directed a Halo-ish short film entitled Alive in Joburg. If Jackson himself took the reins, it would probably be a no brainer, but you can easily understand Universal and Fox not wanting to roll a pair of $200 million dollar dice on someone their first time out of the gate.
Microsoft hasn't made things much easier, demanding an upfront fee of five million for the rights and 10% of the profits -- especially when movies based on video games have never been huge performers at the box office. This isn't to say the movie still couldn't get made. Jackson is still attached and pre-production continues on the film, although without a studio home it now faces a serious uphill battle.
According to Jackson's agent at International Creative Management, Ken Kamins, "What happened was this: Universal, on behalf of both studios, asked for a meeting with the filmmakers just prior to the due date of a significant payment. Basically, they said that in order to move forward with the film, the filmmakers had to significantly reduce their deals. They waited until the last minute to have this conversation. Peter and Fran, after speaking with their producing partners and with Microsoft and Bungee (the studio that designed the original game), respectfully declined."
Come on Variety, you can't even spell Bungie right?
What do you think? Should Master Chief drive his warthog out of Hollywood, or come back with both barrels blasting?
-
Bah. It would have been crap anyway...
-
Finally. My flaming of all those morons who thought 'Peter Jackson = Instant Winner' is at last vindicated.
Frankly, this is for the best. With perhaps only a single video-game to movie adaptation being anywhere near high quality, this is an excellent move. :yes:
-
Halo Movie = :snipe:
I would have watched it in the same way i watched the Doom movie (obviously based on 3) but it would have been pants.
-
Ironically, the fact Neil Blomkamp was directing would have been the only reason I might have watched the film.
With perhaps only a single video-game to movie adaptation being anywhere near high quality, this is an excellent move.
Which one was that?
-
What a badly written story.
It clearly says that PJ and Co. are continuing pre-production work at Weta Digital while they shop around for a new studio. The project is far from dead.
-
They should get Digital Anvil to do the CGI should i t carry on, They are the best in the field if you ask me :)
-
With perhaps only a single video-game to movie adaptation being anywhere near high quality, this is an excellent move.
Which one was that?
That would be the first 'Mortal Kombat' movie. Haven't seen it myself, but I asked in a thread a while back, and in three pages the only movie anyone came up with was MK. Go figure.
-
What a badly written story.
It clearly says that PJ and Co. are continuing pre-production work at Weta Digital while they shop around for a new studio. The project is far from dead.
Losing anywhere between 125 to 200 million of funding from a pair of major studios, including their experience & knowledge at the movie business, doesn't exactly bode well though. As pre-production is basically 'planning' - scripting, casting, etc - it's hard to see how much useful work can be done without a source of funding. I mean, how can you cast an actor - especially a 'name' one (i.e. NOT the Rock) - without a budget?
-
Microsoft.
-
You're right, they'll just CG the entire movie then have the ending cut off by a BSOD.
-
I think the argument is obvious from his title, no?
-
Microsoft.
What? Please explain what on earth that means?
-
It means everything. And nothing. It is the Alpha. And the Omega.
-
::)
-
I think the argument is obvious from his title, no?
:rolleyes:
@aldo: Microsoft, or as the kids like to spell it these days, Micro$soft, has deep pockets. In case you haven't heard.
I personally think this is a positive development. I would hope the distributer would be willing to give a film what it needs to become a financial and critical success, rather than just dumping out a generic "blockbuster" with serious quality issues.
Though it is unconfirmed as to whether Fox has left the project. Universal is definitely out though.
-
They should get Digital Anvil to do the CGI should i t carry on, They are the best in the field if you ask me :)
]
I don't even think digital anvil exists any more.
If i had to pick a cg company, I'd be bowing to the cg gods at Zoic, mastermind of the graphics behind the new Battlestar, CSI (and its progeny), Firefly/Serenity, Day After Tommorrow, Cut scenes for The GodFather and Medal of Honour...among others. Their work impresses me everytime i see their next evolution....
bottom line is if they're good enough for Ricky Bobby...Zoic is good enough for me!
besides cylons have similar properties as the Master Chiefs armour....go halo?
-
I think the argument is obvious from his title, no?
:rolleyes:
@aldo: Microsoft, or as the kids like to spell it these days, Micro$soft, has deep pockets. In case you haven't heard.
I personally think this is a positive development. I would hope the distributer would be willing to give a film what it needs to become a financial and critical success, rather than just dumping out a generic "blockbuster" with serious quality issues.
Though it is unconfirmed as to whether Fox has left the project. Universal is definitely out though.
Microsoft might have deep pockets, but movies are a huge risk, they have no long term business model or plan for media, no experience, and no connections. It'd be about as feasible as Ford opening a cafe chain.
-
Particle systems should do the cgi
http://media.putfile.com/IWar
-
Microsoft might have deep pockets, but movies are a huge risk, they have no long term business model or plan for media, no experience, and no connections. It'd be about as feasible as Ford opening a cafe chain.
So what. They've got so much money they could afford to blow 2-300 million discovering whether they are any good at movies or not. They could treat it as a feasibility study.
-
They could, but will they?
-
There's no point in blowing 2-300 million in finding out if releasing a Halo movie will work, when the only reason that they'd have to spend the 2-300 million would be the movie that would be blowing in that hypothetical situation.
OTOH, I am curious about why Microsoft couldn't simply fund the film itself and use Universal/Fox as a sort of go-between to do all the actual work. You'd think that Microsoft could hammer out a deal whereby they gained a greater % of the profits in exchange for funding more of the film. Methinks that something else may be going on.
All that being said, I've been impressed enough with the Halo movies so far that if a movie did come out, I'd probably go see it. If they could link in some kind of meaning-of-life message or whatever that'd be nice, but being able to see the SFX and no-holds-barred SciFi style of Halo onscreen would certainly be an experience. OK, so the fanbois throwing little Master Chief replica dolls at the opening premier would be fun too. :p
-
Microsoft might have deep pockets, but movies are a huge risk, they have no long term business model or plan for media, no experience, and no connections. It'd be about as feasible as Ford opening a cafe chain.
So what. They've got so much money they could afford to blow 2-300 million discovering whether they are any good at movies or not. They could treat it as a feasibility study.
They could blow 200-300 million on a lot of feasibility studies, it doesn't mean it make any sort of financial or business sense for them to do so. Generally speaking, businesses with Big Fat Piles Of Cash are more reluctant, not less, to piss it away on daft ventures. Google excepted.
-
They could blow 200-300 million on a lot of feasibility studies, it doesn't mean it make any sort of financial or business sense for them to do so.
Completely wrong. What's the point in having mindbendingly enormous piles off cash and not using it to make even more cash, and how do you make cash, you muscle other companies out of business until you have a monopoly. They're already done this in the software sector, or at least as much as governments seem willing to allow them, so the sensible business plan for them now is to diversify into other sectors, use their bottomless pockets to wipe out the competition there, and form monopolies in those sectors.
Microsoft are being lazy. Capitalism has the same ending as Highlander. "There can be only one.". Microsoft should be ensuring it's them.
-
They could blow 200-300 million on a lot of feasibility studies, it doesn't mean it make any sort of financial or business sense for them to do so.
Completely wrong. What's the point in having mindbendingly enormous piles off cash and not using it to make even more cash, and how do you make cash, you muscle other companies out of business until you have a monopoly. They're already done this in the software sector, or at least as much as governments seem willing to allow them, so the sensible business plan for them now is to diversify into other sectors, use their bottomless pockets to wipe out the competition there, and form monopolies in those sectors.
Microsoft are being lazy. Capitalism has the same ending as Highlander. "There can be only one.". Microsoft should be ensuring it's them.
What's the point of having vast resources of cash and then pissing it away on a market sector so far away from both your core strengths, brand recognition value, corporate setup, experience/skill base and reputation as to be unrecognisable? MS doesn't have dominance or monopoly in any case; just look at the heating-up rivalry with Google and Apple in markets far, far closer to their market area. Even entertainment hardware like the Xbox and Zune are being 'done' because they are valuable as software sellers or for softening up the marketplace (and both are also using 3rd parties like IBM & Toshiba to shoulder costs and provide expertise).
Moreso, Microsoft don't have the facilities, skills or staff for making a movie; so unless they want to open up a studio and distributor for a one-off property (because they don't have anything else anywhere near as movie-marketable as Halo), they'll need to go via an established major studio. Because what sort of movie crew, etc, would leave one of those for a short term contract at Microsoft studios? So then you have MS paying the studio to make the movie.... and a distributor to distribute. In the knowledge that the movie game is fickle, too; the Doom movie cost $70m (half the estimated Halo movie cost, and that's assuming there aren't delay and budget increases) and only made $56m.
And if there's one thing big corporations know, it's risk management. Maximising ROI and all that jazz. So there's no way in hell they'll self finance, because it's a huge risk (not to mention the aside of negative impact on the game brand if the movie is ****e - and arguably the value of Halo as a movie is PR rather than money, which is why you want professionals to do it); just look at the conditions they attached in getting other studios to finance it.
-
That's such a weak defence of M$'s laziness that I won't even bother. ;7
-
:rolleyes: