WETA/Microsoft put HALO FILM on the back burners :(

[WhatsHisFace]

Just make another one of your red-e-spam threads.

 

[Horrorfan]

I'd just like to say that T2 was actually a very good movie, and wasn't just special effects

Plus linda hamilton was sexahy.

 

[Tetragrammaton]

Linda Hamilton gave me the creeps in that movie. What really made the movie cool is when Arnold jumps onto the hood of the moving 18 wheeler and unloaded an assault rifle on the liquid terminator from less than a foot away. That was the coolest thing ever when I first saw it

 

[Horrorfan]

Linda Hamilton gave me the creeps in that movie. What really made the movie cool is when Arnold jumps onto the hood of the moving 18 wheeler and unloaded an assault rifle on the liquid terminator from less than a foot away. That was the coolest thing ever when I first saw it

How comes she gave you the creeps?

But yeah I don't see how anyone can say T2 is just a brainless sfx movie. It's a modern classic.

The ending is still sad today

 

[Tetragrammaton]

I still hate how they ruined it with T3. No fate but what we make for ourselves.....opps, just kidding, nothing you do can prevent judgement day, lol! The entire theme behind the last two movies was just a joke, lol guyz!

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Schwarzenegger should have made a new IP instead of Terminator. What's with all the sequels?!

 

[Horrorfan]

I still hate how they ruined it with T3. No fate but what we make for ourselves.....opps, just kidding, nothing you do can prevent judgement day, lol! The entire theme behind the last two movies was just a joke, lol guyz!

I kinda like the idea JD HAS to happen, not because of fate, but because humanity needs one big **** up to show it the error of its ways. I took it as not fate, but how humanity just doesn't know when to leave it alone sometimes.


Kinda sad how John will be killed though

 

[TheGrayGhost]

You guys are still arguing this? What's to discuss? The film is at least a HUGE risk. That's that.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Thanks for the input TheGrayGhost, but everyone knows that.

 

[Mentok]

PWNT!

Bumped because of the awesomeness of the gif

 

[WhatsHisFace]

I must say, that's a pretty awesome and very appropriate gif.

 

[Extromaniac]

Yes, yes it is. That's the epitome of pwnage.

 

[MrHateYourself]

I wish I was a Mod, I would have closed this thing awhile ago.

Easy fix:don't come in here.

Since when was Paul Veerhoeven a an "internationally acclaimed" director?

Robocop, Basic Instinct, Total Recall, pretty big hits; and successful in his home country as well.

Last I heard, the guy's films are infamous for being ripe with sensationalist crap, over emphasis on sexuality and too much blood and gore with very, very little substance.

Ohno! Sensationalism! Wait, very little substance....well, he'd be a good fit for Halo....!

And aside from his one-hit wonder that was Basic Instinct, can you provide at least a single good example that indicates Paul Veerhoeven being a commercially successful director?

See above. Hollow Man did well as well, and cleaned up on the home video/DVD market.

You mean the very same that sits at #89 amongst the 100 highest grossing films of all time? Oh yeah, that one tanked BAD.

Indeed it did. It's total gross after all was said and done was double, and then did no business on VHS or DVD? Hit completely rock bottom in America? Yep. But of course, the studio itself refers to Godzilla as a tanker, and we all know that studios don't know what they're doing.

I'm sure TV series have box-office reciepts in your own imaginary little wolrd. Idiot.

Uh, SERENITY, idiot? TV ratings and DVD sales that fail to recover the cost of the TV series? Huge loss of money before they sank even MORE money into the flick, and then a further loss? I'm sure it only failed because of communists and terrorists-effects driven scifi stories ALWAYS are a hit!

Paul W. Anderson, a "huge hitmaker"? And you had the audacity to call this hack as someone with "talent"?

Quote me on that? Yeah, he's a hack. An incredibly successful one. Talent has no bearing on the industry. Maybe you've heard of George Lucas, does that name ring more of a bell?

David Twohy? My God, just when I thought you couldn't get anymore stupid...can you name at least one film of his in the list of highest grossing films of all time? And aside from Pitch Black, did he make anything that was even decent?

Again, you fail reading comprehension. Twohy directed a "big budget scifi action flick"! AND it was based on something successful! Big budget scifi action AND popularity NEVER fails at the box office, especially if it's sold a few million copies-just ask anyone involved with the Hitchhiker's Guide!

If all these examples are your way of trying to prove why a Halo film would be a bad idea, then you're a suckass job.

Maybe if I type C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N slowly you'll get it? It's clearly labeled examples of why scif fi effects pieces are NOT some kind of magical box office gold.

Talent isn't marketable? Yeah, I'm sure the box-office success of the numerous films by talented filmmakers like James Cameron, Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg , Gore Verbenski, Tim Burton, Ridley Scott, Robert Zemeckis, Mel Gibson, Sam Raimi and many, many more prove your asinine statement wrong.

Inclusion of Raimi on the list is quite funny, but I'll skip that. No, it's not. Shrek 2, for instance? The Fast And Furious series? They may carry an influencial name, but you don't have to have talent. Tally up the moderate to huge hits by people who aren't on your list, one or two hit wonders-you'll find a MUCH bigger number. Teen girls didn't flock to Titanic because they saw Cameron's name, nerds didn't flock to LOTR because of Jackson's horror flicks, people didn't scream in terror (despite not being able to be heard in space) because they saw Scott's name, Michael J Fox surely had NOTHING to do with the success of Back To The Future, and Spiderman fans are only fans when Raimi's name is included. They've produced some big hits, but of those the only two names that have any widely influencial draw are Spielberg and Burton....and people go because of the successful history of their films, not because of some technical love. Their talent may produce the goodness, but people only care about the end result.

Twister (494 million) - Big name cast? Nope. Big name filmmakers? Nope. I'd love to see you explain how this one made it so close to 500 million.

Those amazing new CG that was all the rage, a hot soundtrack (you'll find a not so surprising correlation in that time period between pop soundtracks and box office success), and a purely moronic "feel good action!" basis. "It was fun and entertaining!"

Home Alone (533 million) - Another one I'll be eagerly waiting to see your explaination for.

A careful marketing campaign and the popularity of kids in the 80s probably had nothing to do with it. We all know the truth, though-somebody sold their soul to Satan to get the box office up on that POS.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (383 million)

George Lucas, Spielberg, AND Harrison Ford? Only clever lies could have coerced movie goers.

Independence Day (811 million) - a cheesy alien invasion flick that neither had a big-name director nor a big-name cast.

Off the heels of the successful Stargate, with the biggest display of new effects, and Will Smith wasn't a star? Nor was Jeff Goldblum? This must have been in Malaysia or somewhere, right?

Pirates of the Carribean (653 million) - we all know this was a suprise hit.

No kidding. Even the suits publicly cried about it before it was released.

Passion of the Christ (604 million) - by your own admission

A niche film (religion), first huge box office for a film of it's type (religion), and no studio was in a rush to finance it because of the huge unproven risk-so it was a low budget gamble that paid off.

Star Wars (797 million) - by your own admission

A (then) niche film (scifi), one of few largely successful scifi films of it's type (scifi), and no studio was in a rush to finance it because of the genre's history-so it was a low budget gamble.

Waitwait. We have TWO failing, unproven niches here that no one wanted to touch, and then AFTER a low budget one make it big, studios consider it possibly money. So, video games as a failing unproven niche that no one wants to touch.....and no one understands why no studio wants to give it BIG money when SMALL money hasn't paid off yet? Kinda like comics before XMen came along? Baby steps. You don't JUMP into the deep end of the pool with a niche.

Pretty Woman (463 million) - I'd like you to enlighten me how the hell did this film make so much money...

Find me a soccer mom who DOESN'T love that movie. I'm at a loss, beyond that.

The Mummy (413 million) - Ghost (517 million) - another I'd kill to see you explain away.

People love ****? And Patrick Swayze? "fun and entertaining".

My Big Fat Greek Wedding (356 million) - oh and this one too.

I wish I knew. Hype machine. Sold soul?

Day after Tomorrow (527 million) - this one too. Not a well-known property but still made big bucks.

Constantly harking on Independance Day and Stargate probably didn't help. Odd that they ignored Godzilla, as that was clearly a HUGE movie that everyone loved.

Back to the Future (350 million) - Robert Zemeckis' first big feature film. With very little (if any at all) star power. But the green kept coming in. How?

Also a ridiculously low budget flick. Not a huge risk. Spielberg influence. You claim he wasn't popular, but Spielberg's never had a post Jaws period where he couldn't weild influence. And a damn quality flick to boot. A first of it's sort, I'd almost say.

Like I said before, your ridiculous claim about only well-known properties being able to bring in money shows the extent of your ignorance and incompetence.

You've failed again. That's not MY arguement. It IS part of my arguement on the case of ADAPTATIONS.

I mean, how the **** can the map pack outsell the original if the only people who can even buy the map pack are the ones who own the original game to begin with? You give a whole new meaning to the words "******ed" and "dumbass".

Oh, was that my point? No, it wasn't. But the figures for the map pack give a nice idea of how many Halo purchasers are big enough Halo fans to shell out a LITTLE more for a little more Halo. If the map pack sold anywhere near the core game itself's numbers, that's a pretty ravaging fanbase. If it only sells a small amount, that kinda shows that Halo isn't regarded as "OMG BEST THING EVAR GOTTA HAVE IT ALLLLLLL!"

And it's always entirely possible to outsell. Unlikely, but plenty possible. Grandma doesn't know what she's buying, and as a personal example:a friend who went to an employer XMas party where door prizes were given out, several of them being an XBox with the Map Pack.....but no Halo 1 or 2. There's several sales without the original attached. An ex's father was constantly buying PC game expansions without the original because he didn't know.

Microsoft (and Bungie) did not want a bastard adaptation of their property. That is why they did not allow creative control over it. As for MS's demands about the upfront gross and additional financial incentives, they did so because they knew they had a hot property on their hands that studios were lusting after. An interview with Ed Fries post Halo 2 sales stated that he got a call from every studio in Hollywood wanting to make a movie based on Halo, only Bungie was too protective of their game to let go of the rights under said conditions.

Yep, Hollywood is desperate, hence the years of apathy and shopping about, and the mere handful of studios who expressed interest. OH, an INTERVIEW! Why, surely the guy who's desperately trying to get a deal made wouldn't say something as a bluff! No, he'd be dead honest and tell who's said what and express disappointment if applicable. He'd have no reason to keep up competetive appearances. The entertainment industry has a long history of honesty!

But it still doesn't explain Microsoft's desires to stay far away from any risk and indulge in pure profit. Fine, perfectly logical that Microsoft doesn't want to produce it, they have no movie experience. They can still pay for the flick. The George Lucas Deal. Lucas pays for his flicks out of his own pocket and owns all the rights, Fox distributes them and takes a much lower percentage than they normally would-but it's a pretty safe bet, a huge property and marketing/distribution for an A lister is about as expensive as an average Hollywood flick. Safe bet, safe money. Why doesn't Microsoft just PAY for the thing, so that they can keep creative control AND get a larger percentage? Unless, of course, there's something that suggests they might lose money.....probably not that more money has been SPENT on video game movies than MADE, surely not. That marketing it to Joe Public would be a pain and difficult, surely not.

There's no question of whether or not the studios think that a Halo movie would be profitable. If they actually had any reservations about a Halo movie failing to work "historically" as you so foolishly claim, they wouldn't have even thought of caving into MS's demands in the first place:

Splitting up the risk, eh? Not confident enough to take it on their own? Must be a reason to suggest carving up the losses. Nah, just paranoia. They're sharing the risk because they're such nice guys, and they know that the other company would love to share the profit too. Hollywood isn't greedy!

By formula, I meant there are certain common elements amongst all blockbusters that give a general picture of what would or would not work.

In the case of scifi movies, they're typically NOT about bigass action war. That's part of it, but look at Star Wars or modern setting scifi flicks-the bigger action always takes a back seat to the society, the stars, things that people RELATE to. Where is that in Halo? The main character of the series doesn't even have a story, much less a name or face. At least Soccer Mom and Joe Street know that Mario eats mushrooms and rescues the princess. They know that Batman is Bruce Wayne and battles The Joker, that Superman is Clark Kent and is vulnerable to Kryptonite, that Spiderman does whatever a spider can. Solid Snake, Cloud, Master Chief? Not a clue, despite the impressive sales for their mediums. They won't know who they are, what a Halo is, or why it matters-what do they have to relate to?

That is why you have studios mandating to filmmakers about what they do or do not have to see. If no one had any idea about what kinds of films the general audience incline to, then there would have been no studio pressure and every director would've gotten his way to make the film HE wants to make. Get it, "******"?

came after U and Fox played hardball and unsuccessfully tried to get the filmmakers and Microsoft to reduce their profit participation.

It all had nothing to do with some unseen realization by the studios that a Halo movie wouldn't work all of a sudden. Like I said, it was a financial disagreement BETWEEN the parties.

"Uh, guys, look, this REALLY isn't looking as good as we'd hoped, we'd kinda like a larger safety net. These things don't do well, and Halo is a tough cookie. Send a bit more of the money this way since we're the ones who'll have to bail out if it fails, and we do all the work?" Easy enough for history to cause a financial disagreement. So they want more money, that's industry nature regardless, but again....if it's sure to be money bags all around, why would it matter that much if it's a little more?

In Hollywood, "legs" are measured on the basis of how good or otherwise a film is.

"good" can't be measured. "Legs" are based on marketability and history of stars/genre/material. Star Wars got it's budget based on scifi history and Lucas' history and ONE executive believing in the project. XMen got it's budget based on other comic films, the series history, not because someone thought it was a "good" or "bad" script. If QUALITY were what Hollywood were based on, there'd be a lot less movies produced.

But. seeing as how incredible a moron you are to assert Halo not having "Hollywood legs" even before seeing a single frame of the film...

Yet somehow, asserting that it DOES have legs (especially in front of evidence otherwise) without a single frame of film is not moronic? And it wouldn't have a single frame BEFORE it had legs, because shooting comes AFTER budget legs, but that's just being picky.

Haha, you undercut your own point there by not even realizing the fact that success can NEVER be achieved without trying.

Look at how many lazy films make it. The (modern) Omen being the most recent example I've had to suffer through. But again, reading comprehension. That was SARCASM! You'll learn about such complicated writing styles in high school. Or maybe college.

Yes, and I am so thankful to the gods they sent a professional high-ranking studio executive like you to enlighten us with the "truth".

And what would we do without you other Hollywood moguls to debate me? Ahyes, you're nobodies. Your "truth" validation is.....?

I love how you so conveniently sidestepped my point about Apollo 13 or any other Tom Hanks film that could not be saved by his "star power", like You've got Mail and That Thing you Do, both of which were released AFTER Forrest Gump. Keep playing dodgeball, son. That way we can all see how big a gutless wrench you really are.

Ohno, You've Got Mail didn't set box office records! But it DID make profit. Ooops! Apollo 13, it wouldn't have mattered WHO was in that. That Thing You Do, eh-it happens. Can't always be on top. Ahnold's career didn't nose dive after Last Action Hero.

I like your blatant hypocrisy in dismissing 9 million Halo game players are insignificant to the film industry, yet Forrest Gump, a novel that stayed on the New York Times best-seller list for only a couple of weeks which wouldn't amount to more than a million books sold at most all of sudden becomes a deciding factor in Forrest Gump's box office success. Double standards be damned, eh chucky?

Video gamers only talk video games with other gamers. A successful book gets coverage, discussion, and word of mouth along a MUCH wider audience. I've overheard plenty of discussions on The Da Vinci Code among people unfamiliar with it, never heard gamers or nongamers discussing an unfamiliar game; nor is anyone going to say "Hey, my buddy Jim played that Halo game and liked it-it must be pretty interesting! I'll go see it!"

you instantly know that a Halo film made by a talented group of filmmakers would NOT have "good word of mouth" even before production gets underway.

"Video game" being a dirty word has a LOT to do with it. You can instantly write off potential audience members the moment those words hit. Again, go speak to Joe Street or Soccer Mom-they don't care about a video game.

whereas Halo will be a summer tentpole with a wide release and a vast marketing campaign that obviously will have a good chance to gross big numbers.

Because again, tentpoles are ALWAYS successful.

You don't suppose it had anything to do with the fact that videogame movies have been utter crap so far? Moviegoers are not ignoring videogame movies, they are ignoring suckass movies. And unless you try and present an example of a good videogame adaptation that tanked (yeah, good luck with THAT one ), my point still stands and you're still wrong.

Ahyes, the average person is going to say "That video gamer liked his video game movie! Even though I've never liked them but they're popular among gamers, I shall now go see it based on a gamer's advice!" I have tomorrow off, it's becoming VERY tempting to hit the street with a camera and start polling up these things. Of course, I'm sure that random polling of average nongaming Americans won't count, because VIDEO GAMES ARE POPULAR AMONG GAMERS!

As for good video game movies.....I still haven't seen Silent Hill, but I've heard a surprising number of positive things. Of course, those positive things have all come from gamers, so.....

 

[MrHateYourself]

Oh and don't even try and play the "business" card on me,
junior. I'm a second year BBA Entrepreneurship student, so if you want
to get all technical, go ahead and see how badly you get
creamed.

Nice, so we have a similar education. Marketing, here. Plus ACTUAL
entrepreneural experience-have you run a business yet, even if it's a
corporate job? Do you have any work experience in entertainment? My
answers to these things are yes.

I'm still waiting for an answer.

You're also asking for a lot of things that vary on taste. "awesome"
isn't exactly measurable. Nor is "intriguiging". I'll point to an
example of another one I watched recently:Hitchhiker's Guide. Not
unknown but not stellar cast, effects driven, certainly unique, FAR
more popular than Halo will ever be, big marketing campaign.......and
it flopped with the sound similar to that of a sperm whale falling
from space.

And what exactly is your proof in stating that a Halo movie can
only sink?

Find where I said it can only and absolutey WILL sink. I'm in the camp
that it's a tough battle.

there have been many a sci-fi that hit the jackpot - War of the
Worlds, Terminator 2, Star Wars etc.

First, Star Wars was the low budget gamble that blew open the big
gates. The low budget mega success that video games haven't had.
Second, yeah, so some scifi flicks are on that list, but there's more
that have tanked than soared. And some things simply CAN'T be pushed
on a public-Star Trek is an international hit, Doctor Who has decades
of being a hit EVERYWHERE BUT AMERICA and has never been able to make
a smash.

Heck, there's even a videogame adaptation that made a decent
lot of money - the first Tomb Raider that collected 250
million

That starred the hottest actress of the moment and most people had no
clue was based on a video game. Oddly, the second one, once the video
game secret is out of the bag, didn't do so well.

So videogame adaptations aren't as unanimously resistant to box
office success like you say.

Forbidden Planet, 2001, there were scifi hits before Star Wars-not
many. Superman, Batman, there were comic hits before XMen-not many.
Superhero flicks that weren't ICONS of POP CULTURE failed prior to
XMen, and Halo/Master Chief, I'm sorry to remind you, is NOT pop
culture icon. Gamers know him, and that's the extent of it. To the
rest of the world, Master Chief is a generic scifi guy.

hen how do you explain films like Minority Report, Star Wars
and The Matrix and to some extent, even the first two
Terminators?

Minority, modern setting and not about the technology as much as the
humans involved. The suffering of the psychics. Tom Cruise's
innocence. The "grand idea" took a back seat, became scenery. Star
Wars? It had a world that was fleshed out and fantastic, characters
that could be plunked into Vietnam or the future and still have the
same relatable ideals. What is Master Chief's story, motivation,
character? He has none. Why should anyone care about a generic future
Earth? Matrix is VERY modern setting for the most part, and is again
not so much about humans vs machine as it is about one's self and role
in the world. About questioning life and the world around you. About
decision making. The computers are scenery, part of a metaphor-but the
metaphor isn't about machines. The first two Terminators were very
much character pieces, especially the second one, which featured new
technology on a level only comparable to the first Star Wars.

Read the novels and play the games.

Suffered through the games, thanks; I'll pass on the novels-we're not
adapting a book here. If the world can't be built in the game, it's
obviously of no importance to the writers.

Educating yourself before entering an argument with someone is
always a great idea lest you make a buffoon out of yourself.

Interesting that they couldn't be bothered to put anything of that IN
THE GAME. Read your own link-very little of the information on Chief
himself comes from the game, but from supplementals. My, how
"important" character is to the developers! And again, adapting a
game, not some fanfiction with a profiteering logo on it. Hardcore
fans read the books, not casual fans.

under what circumstances would a Halo movie would fail

The biggest oneeople don't care about video games, and that no one
(aside from the fans) knows who Chief is or what a Halo is. It looks
painfully generic, especially if Weta dirtied themselves with literal
translations of designs from the game. We might as well be writing a
book on the history of scifi flicks-the landscape is littered with
them. It happens quite regularly.

it's why mundane, "play-it-safe" cowards don't enter the
business world.

Being Jewish, I am thusly allowed to make Jew jokes and
references:mundane play it safe money conscious Jews DO run the
business world and Hollywood. We wouldn't be rich if we were
willynilly with money!

Actually, it's "Actions speak louder than words",

Oh, well, thanks for that nugget, I'd never heard that tired one. It
doesn't negate the truth in mine, though. Silence and action BOTH
speak louder than words. And silence over words AND actions shows more
truth than either would alone.

That's why only propeties that have a track-record of
generating huge revenues, like say Harry Potter, The Matrix or
Spiderman, whose first installments had modest production values
whereas the sequels blew the roof away in terms of budget.

No businessman worth his salt likes to blow his load and put it all on
the line on the first try. Even if there's a really solid margin of
profit and the market is relatively safe for competing in, he will
always take baby steps in before making the big leap. It's only sound
business strategy.

Which, oddly, is exactly what I've been saying. The video game movie
industry has yet to pass baby steps. And the ground breakers have
always been TINY movies, not a $200 mil monster.

t'd be cool if every fan of the game put forward five bucks to
fund the movie.

Yep, since Microsoft knows they have a bomb and won't shill for it.
This IS a crazy idea, but I'm really surprised no group of fans (in
any number of subjects) hasn't tried this more thoroughly. Filmmaker A
wants to adapt Subject B into Movie C, posts everything online and
asks for donations to raise the licensing fees. The only risk there is
not raising enough money and having to track down all the donators to
give them their money back.....unless there were a little line about
donations being permanent.

There was a Final Fantasy movie in America, since when? And
personally, I have only seen one Resident Evil movie in the American
market as well.

Uh, FINAL FANTASY:THE SPIRITS WITHIN, perhaps? Made IN AMERICA? Advent
Children, not made in America but released here if you want to count
it. TWO Resident Evil movies, with a third filming. I forgot to add
Wing Commander, Silent Hill and Dead Or Alive (is it out yet?) to my
list.

Because Halo has a rich story and is a rather colorful world
under all that running and gunning. If you've read the books, that
is.

Except we're talking about the GAME.

video game adaptions tend to tank because they are not faithful
to the source material.

And a lack of faithfulness is what drives away the average movie goer?
"I don't know the source material, but I know this isn't it. I'm not
seeing it."

Halo is the literal 'Superman' of the video game industry. Why
do I say this? Because Master Chief is a widely recognizable figure in
America.

Mario is a WAY more recognized figure and he tanked. Mario is a pop
culture icon. And no, Master Chief is NOT well known or a pop culture
icon. Ask random people who aren't gamers. They have no idea. Chief is
well known among GAMERS. As said above, random person on the street
will know about (and be able to tell you a little about) Mario,
Batman, Spiderman, Captain Kirk, etc.

Who cares about international success?

It's a pretty big part of it, actually. For small films and tentpoles.

It was A NUMBER ONE SELLING GAME

So WAS Mortal Kombat, no one's rushing for one of those. So were a lot
of games. The same rule applies in other industries Limp Biskit WERE
number one selling artists, NSync and Backstreet Boys WERE number one
selling AND record smashing, but no one buys them anymore either. Same
for movies-no one rushed for Electric Boogaloo, though it HAD a hit.

The studios saw the potential in the film.

So much potential that no one would jump on it unless it were divided
up.

Yes, its HIS DECISION.

Er, no. Peter Jackson does not run Fox or Universal. He's hired to
THEIR project and THEY have final say, including killing it, not him.

Thre is a huge difference between a film not being good enough
(Great leap in logic there BTW ) and wanting to further develop a
concept and plan.

So, again. If it's good enough, why does the thing need "concept
development"? Isn't the concept of Halo good enough? Apparently not.

The film was not dropped because they didnt think they could
turn a profit. It was dropped because they didnt want to make the
financial commitment that MICROSOFT demanded.

Yeah. THE MONEY WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. It was not profitable enough (in
theory) to make them happy. IE, "We don't think this will make enough
money to be worth our time, unless we get more money."

1- Refusing to stick with the subject material.

Oh cripes, THAT again. Yes. The American movie goer who doesn't play
video games hates game movies because they're "unfaithful". The same
reason that superhero movies that don't stick to subject source fail,
like X3 and Superman Returns.

Tell you what, kids-Peter Jackson has appeared at a few of AICN's Butt
Numb A Thon events, and so it's not an unlikely gamble that he'll show
up this year. If he does, and there's a Q&A or any other chance for me
to throw a question or two about Halo his way, what do you want asked?
Why Microsoft refuses to pay for it? Whether the failed game movie
niche had any influence? You tell me what you want to know (relevant
to this arguement) and if I can, I'll ask.

Jeebus Christ. I've listened through an entire album crafting this
response. Aside from the last paragraph on Jackson/BNAT, I'm done with
this conversation. You're not seeing that video games are a bad idea
and that Halo is not pop culture, and the simple fact is that the
movie would be IN PRODUCTION if the money were good enough.....but
it's not. So. If the movie ever happens, and it's a success, I'll be
eating my words and I'll perform some ludicrous task. If it happens
and it tanks.....well, we'll worry about your potential reparations
if/when it gets closer.

Ludicrous task:Fenrir, WHF, other few who's names I'm not looking at right now who've argued with me:the DVD will be on me.* Not the **** fullscreen basic WalMart edition, I'll spring for the easy to assume bigger version.

*people who've argued with me up to this point. It's too late to hop onto the potential free DVD bandwagon.

 

[Extromaniac]

Nice, so we have a similar education. Marketing, here. Plus ACTUAL
entrepreneural experience-have you run a business yet, even if it's a
corporate job? Do you have any work experience in entertainment? My
answers to these things are yes.



You're also asking for a lot of things that vary on taste. "awesome"
isn't exactly measurable. Nor is "intriguiging". I'll point to an
example of another one I watched recently:Hitchhiker's Guide. Not
unknown but not stellar cast, effects driven, certainly unique, FAR
more popular than Halo will ever be, big marketing campaign.......and
it flopped with the sound similar to that of a sperm whale falling
from space.



Find where I said it can only and absolutey WILL sink. I'm in the camp
that it's a tough battle.



First, Star Wars was the low budget gamble that blew open the big
gates. The low budget mega success that video games haven't had.
Second, yeah, so some scifi flicks are on that list, but there's more
that have tanked than soared. And some things simply CAN'T be pushed
on a public-Star Trek is an international hit, Doctor Who has decades
of being a hit EVERYWHERE BUT AMERICA and has never been able to make
a smash.



That starred the hottest actress of the moment and most people had no
clue was based on a video game. Oddly, the second one, once the video
game secret is out of the bag, didn't do so well.



Forbidden Planet, 2001, there were scifi hits before Star Wars-not
many. Superman, Batman, there were comic hits before XMen-not many.
Superhero flicks that weren't ICONS of POP CULTURE failed prior to
XMen, and Halo/Master Chief, I'm sorry to remind you, is NOT pop
culture icon. Gamers know him, and that's the extent of it. To the
rest of the world, Master Chief is a generic scifi guy.



Minority, modern setting and not about the technology as much as the
humans involved. The suffering of the psychics. Tom Cruise's
innocence. The "grand idea" took a back seat, became scenery. Star
Wars? It had a world that was fleshed out and fantastic, characters
that could be plunked into Vietnam or the future and still have the
same relatable ideals. What is Master Chief's story, motivation,
character? He has none. Why should anyone care about a generic future
Earth? Matrix is VERY modern setting for the most part, and is again
not so much about humans vs machine as it is about one's self and role
in the world. About questioning life and the world around you. About
decision making. The computers are scenery, part of a metaphor-but the
metaphor isn't about machines. The first two Terminators were very
much character pieces, especially the second one, which featured new
technology on a level only comparable to the first Star Wars.



Suffered through the games, thanks; I'll pass on the novels-we're not
adapting a book here. If the world can't be built in the game, it's
obviously of no importance to the writers.



Interesting that they couldn't be bothered to put anything of that IN
THE GAME. Read your own link-very little of the information on Chief
himself comes from the game, but from supplementals. My, how
"important" character is to the developers! And again, adapting a
game, not some fanfiction with a profiteering logo on it. Hardcore
fans read the books, not casual fans.



The biggest oneeople don't care about video games, and that no one
(aside from the fans) knows who Chief is or what a Halo is. It looks
painfully generic, especially if Weta dirtied themselves with literal
translations of designs from the game. We might as well be writing a
book on the history of scifi flicks-the landscape is littered with
them. It happens quite regularly.



Being Jewish, I am thusly allowed to make Jew jokes and
references:mundane play it safe money conscious Jews DO run the
business world and Hollywood. We wouldn't be rich if we were
willynilly with money!



Oh, well, thanks for that nugget, I'd never heard that tired one. It
doesn't negate the truth in mine, though. Silence and action BOTH
speak louder than words. And silence over words AND actions shows more
truth than either would alone.



Which, oddly, is exactly what I've been saying. The video game movie
industry has yet to pass baby steps. And the ground breakers have
always been TINY movies, not a $200 mil monster.



Yep, since Microsoft knows they have a bomb and won't shill for it.
This IS a crazy idea, but I'm really surprised no group of fans (in
any number of subjects) hasn't tried this more thoroughly. Filmmaker A
wants to adapt Subject B into Movie C, posts everything online and
asks for donations to raise the licensing fees. The only risk there is
not raising enough money and having to track down all the donators to
give them their money back.....unless there were a little line about
donations being permanent.



Uh, FINAL FANTASY:THE SPIRITS WITHIN, perhaps? Made IN AMERICA? Advent
Children, not made in America but released here if you want to count
it. TWO Resident Evil movies, with a third filming. I forgot to add
Wing Commander, Silent Hill and Dead Or Alive (is it out yet?) to my
list.



Except we're talking about the GAME.



And a lack of faithfulness is what drives away the average movie goer?
"I don't know the source material, but I know this isn't it. I'm not
seeing it."



Mario is a WAY more recognized figure and he tanked. Mario is a pop
culture icon. And no, Master Chief is NOT well known or a pop culture
icon. Ask random people who aren't gamers. They have no idea. Chief is
well known among GAMERS. As said above, random person on the street
will know about (and be able to tell you a little about) Mario,
Batman, Spiderman, Captain Kirk, etc.



It's a pretty big part of it, actually. For small films and tentpoles.



So WAS Mortal Kombat, no one's rushing for one of those. So were a lot
of games. The same rule applies in other industries Limp Biskit WERE
number one selling artists, NSync and Backstreet Boys WERE number one
selling AND record smashing, but no one buys them anymore either. Same
for movies-no one rushed for Electric Boogaloo, though it HAD a hit.



So much potential that no one would jump on it unless it were divided
up.



Er, no. Peter Jackson does not run Fox or Universal. He's hired to
THEIR project and THEY have final say, including killing it, not him.



So, again. If it's good enough, why does the thing need "concept
development"? Isn't the concept of Halo good enough? Apparently not.



Yeah. THE MONEY WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH. It was not profitable enough (in
theory) to make them happy. IE, "We don't think this will make enough
money to be worth our time, unless we get more money."



Oh cripes, THAT again. Yes. The American movie goer who doesn't play
video games hates game movies because they're "unfaithful". The same
reason that superhero movies that don't stick to subject source fail,
like X3 and Superman Returns.

Tell you what, kids-Peter Jackson has appeared at a few of AICN's Butt
Numb A Thon events, and so it's not an unlikely gamble that he'll show
up this year. If he does, and there's a Q&A or any other chance for me
to throw a question or two about Halo his way, what do you want asked?
Why Microsoft refuses to pay for it? Whether the failed game movie
niche had any influence? You tell me what you want to know (relevant
to this arguement) and if I can, I'll ask.

Jeebus Christ. I've listened through an entire album crafting this
response. Aside from the last paragraph on Jackson/BNAT, I'm done with
this conversation. You're not seeing that video games are a bad idea
and that Halo is not pop culture, and the simple fact is that the
movie would be IN PRODUCTION if the money were good enough.....but
it's not. So. If the movie ever happens, and it's a success, I'll be
eating my words and I'll perform some ludicrous task. If it happens
and it tanks.....well, we'll worry about your potential reparations
if/when it gets closer.

Ludicrous task:Fenrir, WHF, other few who's names I'm not looking at right now who've argued with me:the DVD will be on me.* Not the **** fullscreen basic WalMart edition, I'll spring for the easy to assume bigger version.

*people who've argued with me up to this point. It's too late to hop onto the potential free DVD bandwagon.

I'll respond to this later.. but my general synopsis of your argument thus far is that it's bull**** and you need to give up.

 

[Tetragrammaton]

It's amazing to me that someone can put so much time into typing an argument...but can't be bothered to spend two seconds fact checking it.

 

[Mentok]

So WAS Mortal Kombat, no one's rushing for one of those. So were a lot
of games. The same rule applies in other industries Limp Biskit WERE
number one selling artists, NSync and Backstreet Boys WERE number one
selling AND record smashing, but no one buys them anymore either. Same
for movies-no one rushed for Electric Boogaloo, though it HAD a hit.

Ahh... Probably because THEY ALREADY MADE A MORTAL KOMBAT FILM WHEN THE SERIES WAS AT ITS MOST POPULAR

Er, no. Peter Jackson does not run Fox or Universal. He's hired to
THEIR project and THEY have final say, including killing it, not him.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH! YOU CANT EVEN KEEP TRACK OF YOUR OWN CONVERSATION. THIS JUST SHOWS YOU DISAGREE FOR THE HELL OF IT WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING/UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE **** IT IT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN *****ING ON THIS THREAD WITH ALL YOUR 'FACTS', "MATHS" and "UNDERSTANDING OF THE INDUSTRY."

I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU.

SO YOU GO AND DISSAGREE WITH ME AGREEING WITH YOU... NICE ONE... ALL THAT EXTRA SCHOOLING YOU HAVE OVER US POOR INTERNET PEOPLE REALLY PAID OFF

SO, HERE IST IS IN ALL ITS GLORY... THE POST I AGREED WITH...

1-That's his DECISION. He CHOSE other projects. But even if he did have time, THE STUDIO canned it. Not him.

BWAHAHAHAHHA... NICE ONE

OF COURSE HE CHOSE OTHER PROJECTS... HE HAS PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN DEVELPMENT LONGER THAN HALO AND AS THE OWNER OF A FILM COMPANY AND EFFECTS STUDIO HE HAS TO COMMIT TO THESE FILMS IN ORDER TO KEEP INVESTORS HAPPY. NO INVESTORS... NO MORE FILMS.

Oh, AND BY THE WAY... THE STUDIO DIDNT CAN THE FILM, THE BACKED OUT OF THE FINANCING AGREEMENT. THE FILM IS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT (SHOCK HORROR... SOMETHING THE PRODUCER "PETER JACKSON" DOES HAVE A SAY IN). THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND IF YOU HAD EVEN BOTHERED TO READ THE DAMN THREAD TOTLE OR EVEN THE FIRST POST IN THE THREAD.

 

[Mentok]

Oh cripes, THAT again. Yes. The American movie goer who doesn't play
video games hates game movies because they're "unfaithful". The same
reason that superhero movies that don't stick to subject source fail,
like X3 and Superman Returns.

Respond to the whole section pal... Oh wait... you cant

The FACT IS that Hollywood changes the premise of the game TOO MUCH and ends up with a **** story... All because they thought they could do it better.

Tell you what, kids-Peter Jackson has appeared at a few of AICN's Butt
Numb A Thon events, and so it's not an unlikely gamble that he'll show
up this year. If he does, and there's a Q&A or any other chance for me
to throw a question or two about Halo his way, what do you want asked?
Why Microsoft refuses to pay for it? Whether the failed game movie
niche had any influence? You tell me what you want to know (relevant
to this arguement) and if I can, I'll ask.

Oh, wow... You really are IN THE INDUSTRY! Its so nice of you to go out of your way to ask him questions for us lowly regular people... No, wait... I can ask him a damn question on HIS MANY BLOG EVENTS Oh noes... A regular peroson in contact with Peter Jackson... Oh Noes.

Jeebus Christ. I've listened through an entire album crafting this
response.

Crafting? Please... You give yourself WAY too much credit

Aside from the last paragraph on Jackson/BNAT, I'm done with
this conversation. You're not seeing that video games are a bad idea
and that Halo is not pop culture, and the simple fact is that the
movie would be IN PRODUCTION if the money were good enough.....but
it's not. So. If the movie ever happens, and it's a success, I'll be
eating my words and I'll perform some ludicrous task. If it happens
and it tanks.....well, we'll worry about your potential reparations
if/when it gets closer.

Blah, Blah, Blah.. Im right and you are all too ****ing stupid to understand all these pearls of wisdom I have been ****ting down on you from the heavens.

Yeah... Nice way of getting out of ACTUALLY PROVIDING SOMETHING OTHER THAN AN OPINION ON THE SUBJECT.


I exoect nothing less from you though. GTFO so we can get back to an actual conversation.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

The Halo movie is going to own no matter how big a PC fanboy Mr. Hate Yourself is.

 

[Tetragrammaton]

Mentok is right. After being wrong in so many different ways on so many different issues, he's just trying to disagree with ANYTHING that is said in the hopes that he might accidently get something right and save a little face in this thread. It's really annoying when people do that.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

You aren't desensitized to it yet? I've been so deadened by these boards I don't think I'll ever read anything surprising.

 

[Horrorfan]

You aren't desensitized to it yet? I've been so deadened by these boards I don't think I'll ever read anything surprising.

Goldenageheroe's ******ed comments about Bully being racist is still the stupid comment to beat imo


To me, he wiped away ANY credit he ever had or would ever have away with that one post.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

He also ruined it by falling for Zenien. Ugh.

 

[Horrorfan]

He also ruined it by falling for Zenien. Ugh.

You mean he fell in love with zenien? How????

 

[Tetragrammaton]

I'm actually Zenien.