Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media Entertainment Games

BioShock Movie To Be Made By Universal 157

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the all-that-matters-is-it's-not-uwe-boll dept.
azuredrake writes "Gamasutra reports that Universal Pictures has just announced a completion of licensing negotiations to bring the game BioShock to the silver screen. For those unfamiliar with the property, it was the much-lauded Game of the Year contender, praised for its storyline which emerged through gameplay, not just cutscenes. The director for the project is to be Gore Verbinski, who proved himself on the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, and the current writer for the screenplay is John Logan, who is recently known for the also-creepy Sweeny Todd."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BioShock Movie To Be Made By Universal More

BioShock Movie To Be Made By Universal

Comments Filter:

  • proved himself (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StrawberryFrog ( 67065 ) on Saturday May 10, 2008 @07:32AM (#23359920) Homepage Journal
    The director for the project is to be Gore Verbinski, who proved himself on the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy

    Proved himself what?

    I mean, did you sit through the last one?

    • Re:proved himself (Score:4, Funny)

      by Negatyfus ( 602326 ) on Saturday May 10, 2008 @07:42AM (#23359958) Journal
      Yes, I did, and I loved it. What's your point?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mrbluze ( 1034940 )

        Yes, I did, and I loved it. What's your point?
        Someone was bound to make a comment like that to a comment like that.

    • Re:proved himself (Score:5, Funny)

      by efence ( 927813 ) on Saturday May 10, 2008 @07:50AM (#23359978)
      So, you are saying you'd rather have Uwe Boll as a director? ;)

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by jps25 ( 1286898 )

        So, you are saying you'd rather have Uwe Boll as a director? ;)
        Would it make any difference?

        • Re:proved himself (Score:4, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 10, 2008 @08:47AM (#23360218)

          So, you are saying you'd rather have Uwe Boll as a director? ;)
          Would it make any difference?
          More boobs?
        • You're saying there's no difference whatsoever between PotC and Uwe Boll's work in terms of direction and overral quality?

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by jps25 ( 1286898 )
            No, though I think that PotC1-3 are overrated, and PotC2 and PotC3 are utter crap.

            What I meant was, that I haven't seen any decent movie which was based on a game, no matter who directed it.
            May I remind you of:
            * Tomb Raider, directed by Simon West,
            * Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life, directed by Jan De Bont,
            * Mario Bros, directed by Rocky Morton and Annabel Jankel
            * Street Fighter, directed by Steven E. de Souza,
            * Wing Commander, directed by Chris Roberts,
            * Final Fantasy, directed by Hironobu Sakaguchi
            * Double

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Das Modell ( 969371 )
              On the other hand, what do you expect with most of the source material that's been used so far? The Resident Evil movies are about as silly as the games, and Doom was a fairly faithful adaptation. BioShock has potential.

              • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                by Vozmozno ( 985521 )
                Doom... a... faithful adaptation? huh? Thou be smokin' something wilst seeing this movie, and I want some.
                • I said a fairly faithful adaptation. Try reading the entire post next time.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Ihmhi ( 1206036 )

                    Chrissakes, the BFG was fucking blue and when it was fired everyone in the room didn't die. That's about as faithful as an Atheist in a strip club.

                  • Re: (Score:2)

                    by Haeleth ( 414428 )

                    I said a fairly faithful adaptation.

                    Yes; "fairly" there implies that you consider it fundamentally faithful and only differing in relatively unimportant ways.

                    Is that an accurate characterisation? You may think so; many of us disagree. The game is about teleportation research that opens portals to a literal Hell populated by supernatural demons and the tormented souls of the damned. The movie, meanwhile, is about genetic research involving a chromosome that mutates humans into monsters. There really isn'

                • Comment removed based on user account deletion
              • Actually, I can't wait the adaptation of Duke Nukem Forever!

              • Re:proved himself (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Khaed ( 544779 ) on Sunday May 11, 2008 @03:13AM (#23367350)
                and Doom was a fairly faithful adaptation

                Um. They made a movie about a game about demons and hell without the demons or the hell.

                It was some ancient civilization and some sort of "rage virus." Which exists nowhere in any Doom I've played.

                How exactly is "throwing out the entire fucking premise" faithful?
            • You forgot Blood Rayne. Video game move, directed by Uwe Boll, still beyond shitty.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by tylernt ( 581794 )
              I respectfully disagree on one of those. All of those films sucked except for the first Resident Evil movie. I haven't played the game, so maybe the movie wasn't faithful, but it was still awesome.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Hojima ( 1228978 )
      I just hope this movie isn't as cheesy as that crap trilogy. I swear to god if they make cheesy lines in the middle of an intense battle, I'm walking out on the movie. That game was awesome and has so much potential to take the stigma out of games-into-movies being crap. Silent hill almost did the trick, so I'm hoping there will be some progress from that level. The game had a lot of creepiness, so it would be great as a horror/action. I doubt they'll stick to the story line, so I hope they have a large ba
    • I couldn't make it through any of them. To me they were pretty much crap, but then again I've never cared for Depp.

      Just my opinion of course. Obviously a lot of people enjoyed them.

    • The director for the project is to be Gore Verbinski, who proved himself on the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy

      I made it through 1 and a half of the Pirates trilogy movies. Without Johnny Depp I'd never have made it through the first. Verbinski took some very talented actors (and some truly awful ones (Bloom and Ikea Knightley, for example)) and proved that he barely has the ability to direct traffic. The second movie was a long rambling mess that I walked out of halfway through -- that was 100% the dire

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by OzRoy ( 602691 )
      I think The Ring would be a better example showing that he can make a good movie out of Bioshock.

      Yes yes I know a lot of people will say the Japanese version was better, but the American one was still a good movie.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Shelled ( 81123 )
        If Verbinski's treatment of the quiet, dark story of a mother's dread that was the original is any indication, BioShock will be perfect summer fare for those who like their movies loud, obvious and 'packed with stuff'.
    • I have to agree with you there. I loved the first one and thought the second and third were shit. Much like the Matrix "trilogy". I have no desire to ever re-watch the second or third films in either of them.

    • Re:proved himself (Score:5, Interesting)

      by morari ( 1080535 ) on Saturday May 10, 2008 @11:28AM (#23361176) Journal
      A better question is, did they sit through any of them?

      Bioshock, as a film, would benefit from being CGI free. It has a nice steampunk quality to it, and thus should done to feel appropriately so.

      • You're gonna need CGI for the plasmids though. Unless you're planning on taking them out entirely.
    • Did they learn nothing from the movie "Doom"?
    • Yeah, and it was the best damn one of the trilogy. Your point?

  • Don't do the in game story! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ttlgDaveh ( 798546 ) on Saturday May 10, 2008 @07:32AM (#23359922) Homepage
    The story needs to be about the fall of Rapture, not what occurs in game, because that will turn out to be shit. Also it shouldn't be called BioShock. Something like 'Rapture' springs to mind.
    • The game kind of sucked, but the setup and back story (and artwork) were among the best ever. The story itself is really about the failure of a philosophy or ideology.

      I don't think this director is the one to pull that off. He might make a fun movie but then again a movie about philosophy would be kind of boring.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by uberjoe ( 726765 )
      Thats what Bioshock 2 is going to be. A prequel chronicling the fall of Rapture. I doubt they will let the movie give that away before the sequel comes out.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ozbird ( 127571 )
      ... because that will turn out to be shit.

      At least they'll be consistent.
  • So if you like "motion picture by pastiche," this will be your movie.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by BarneyRabble ( 866644 )
      Logan was the writer for "Gladiator", which won an Oscar. "ST: Nemesis" faltered from the bad direction of Stuart Baird, a film EDITOR who had no business directing in the first place... I'll wait for the home video release of Bioshock. Seeing Iron Man last weekend was a bio-shock to my wallet....

      • I've heard that many Logan scripts require ghost rewrites to prevent them from becoming train wrecks. Gladiator, The Aviator, and The Last Samurai had the benefit of large studio backings combined with reputable directors and strong casts. Frankly, while waiting for Nemesis, I recall people warning of the impending doom of the script with anecdotes about Ridley Scott having found it necessary to get a ghost writer to make sense of the Gladiator script. Though Logan seems to be a popular writer, remember

  • Film requirements.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Cheesey ( 70139 ) on Saturday May 10, 2008 @07:41AM (#23359956)
    You'll need a top of the range HDTV and Bluray player to watch this movie, which will not work on 10% of the world's Bluray players because it includes a poorly-designed additional copy protection scheme on top of the usual Bluray DRM. The disc requires online activation before it will play, and you'll be limited to five activations, so you can use each disc in no more than five Bluray players. The good news is that the trailer will also be protected by the same scheme, so you will be able to check your equipment for compatibility before you buy.

    • This will all be true even if you go to see it in a theater.

    • You forgot about the widescreen issues. The theaters will show it in 4:3 stretched to 16:9 (or whatever they use) until lots of complaining and you'll be given a free ticket to watch it again. :)

      Razzing Bioshock aside, I loved the game. Still haven't played it in 'true' widescreen yet, as my cousin has had my copy since last November and it hasn't been worth the drive to go get it.

  • The director for the project is to be Gore Verbinski, who proved himself on the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, and the current writer for the screenplay is John Logan, who is recently known for the also-creepy Sweeny Todd.

    So what you're telling us is that it's gonna star Johnny Depp?

  • translation please (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 1u3hr ( 530656 )
    WTF does "its storyline which emerged through gameplay, not just cutscenes" mean in English?
    • It means its not final fantasy. Think half life for something similar.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fbjon ( 692006 )
        I haven't played Bioshock (yet), but I'd say it sounds more like System Shock 1&2.
        • That might be because bioshock is a spiritual successor of system-shock and developed by the same creative head, Ken Levine. I said half life instead because I assumed that if you don't know about bioshock you likely don't know about system-shock.
    • It means that during game play, you could do things like listen to recorders you found on dead bodies, and get creeped out by the surroundings, rather than have everything shown to you in non controllable video shots.

      As for Hellcom's Final Fantasy comment, Final Fantasy used to use cut scenes that were pre rendered to make ps1 and ps2 games look as good as ps3 games. Now that the ps3 is out, they will likely not use them for size reasons.

    • Re:translation please (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BaronHethorSamedi ( 970820 ) <thebaronsamedi@gmail.com> on Saturday May 10, 2008 @09:51AM (#23360528)
      It means that the gameplay was the important story element in Bioshock.

      Which is why the film will suck.

      A key underlying theme in Bioshock is the illusion of choice--sort of a meta-commentary on gaming itself as a medium. (*Spoiler warning*) The player is placed in a broad, seemingly very open environment, invited to make choices as he participates in the story. The twist in the plot is where you find out you're really NOT a participant at all, but an automaton performing as you are expected to by outside actors. I really thought this was a rather clever response to Ebert's principal argument against "games as art"--that games as an interactive medium lack authorial control. The Bioshock authors used the interactivity to demonstrate why authorial control is paramount to the way games tell stories.

      There's no way to convey this through a film. The passive viewer loses the sense of interactivity and participation that made the game philosophically compelling. I'm sure the movie will look pretty, and I'm sure they'll spend a lot of money on it. I'm also sure it won't be able to add anything to what the game already accomplished.
      • A key underlying theme in Bioshock is the illusion of choice Other than the choice to either harvest or save the Lil' Sisters, what moral dilemmas were in there?
        Whereas I loved the game, I think the story is still very much overrated.
      • Considering that the only two choices I saw was, okay, who should I listen to that will get me out of this fucking hellhole the fastest, the sane sounding guy looking for his wife, or the ultra paranoiac who has already demonstrated a willingness to kill me; as well as the choice on whether to kill little sisters or not(not, because being nice to people is generally a good way to go unless they purposefully harm you first) I fail to see any supposed control. The whole bit about being an automaton was just t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spoco2 ( 322835 )
        Why should the film focus on the same thing that the game did? You've got a rich world to mine there... the building of Rapture, the fall of Rapture, the discovery of Rapture (the rapture of Rapture?).

        Basically, the game succeeded on one front, who's to say the movie won't come at the material from another angle and succeed brilliantly also?

        Stop thinking in the narrow 'the movie must just be the game all over again' mindset. The game introduced a world, how they use the world in a movie is open for vast int
  • And when will this actually contribute to making the world a better place?

  • "Day of Defeat: Source" is being bundled with "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers" in time for the Memorial Day weekend shopping season.

    -BA

  • John Logan, who is recently known for the also-crappy Sweeny Todd.
    fixed
  • Some might want to know that Universal is probably THE greatest supporter of both MPAA and RIAA. Some of the members of the aforementioned cartels started to come to their senses, but Universal is adamant in their MAFIAA ways.

  • Objectivist film (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Dr. Cody ( 554864 )
    Finally, Objectivists will have a film to their name!

    Well, with the exception of The Fountainhead, which was accidentally filmed as a screwball comedy.
  • Thank fuck. I thought for a moment Uwe Boll had found another notch for his bed post...!

  • Universal? Again? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pooberry ( 1278210 ) on Saturday May 10, 2008 @11:46AM (#23361288)
    Universal already did this once with the rights to a Halo movie. Then they backed out of funding when the time came to cut a check for pre-production... and that was with a HUGE franchise that was a sure thing.
  • Great special effects, and the ending totally sucked story-wise. Perfect template for Hollywood.
  • Great, another movie based on a video game - hopefully it won't suck this time.
    I kinda hope they bring back System Shock - I'd like to see a new sequel in that series. Not as a movie though.
    • Very true. A movie is the one thing where BioShock would be better than System Shock - Hollywood wouldn't be able to get SHODAN right; also, much of what draws you into SS comes from the fact that the whole mess is actually your fault. Someone once said that the relationship between the player and SHODAN is very personal. It's true. And that can't be captured on the silk screen.

  • You have a choice to make (Score:5, Funny)

    by Knave75 ( 894961 ) on Saturday May 10, 2008 @12:21PM (#23361550)
    When you go to the theater, you will meet an obnoxious minimum wage drone who will charge you $15 for a movie and take 25 minutes to enter the transaction while you miss the opening scene.

    You can...

    (1) Harvest the clerk, and get into the movie for free along with unlimited popcorn.

    or

    (2) Save the clerk, teaching him how to operate a register. You'll still have to pay a bit to get in, but at least you helped the world a bit and the clerk might hook you up with some presents later.
    • Of course if you - at any point - pick (1), you will inevitably end up attacking the free world with nuclear weapons.
  • It could have used a lot more gore, and a lot less Verbinski...

  • Bruce Campbell (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Dillenger69 ( 84599 )
    If it's not about the back story (which it should be), they need to cast Bruce Campbell as the player and camp up the whole thing like the Evil Dead series.
    • they need to cast Bruce Campbell as the player and camp up the whole thing like the Evil Dead series.

      There is a place for comic relief - but sci-fi, fantasy, and horror almost always works best when played straight:

      Very likely the world's first singing-cowboy science-fiction adventure, this 12-episode chapterplay features Gene Autry in his first starring role -- as "Gene Autry," the proprietor of Radio Ranch.
      It is said that Wallace MacDonald...came up with the concept while under the influence of nitrou

  • I can haz a Portal movie? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bushido Hacks ( 788211 ) on Saturday May 10, 2008 @07:47PM (#23365158) Homepage Journal
    I know it is a bit earily, and that Portal has only been around for less than a year, but why not a Portal Movie or a Half-life movie?

    If there is a Half-life/Portal movie, to which some people have speculated, why not have the following people play the possible role.
    • Dr. Gordon Freeman: Edward Norton, Hugh Laurie, Simon Pegg, David Tennant, Cillian Murphy, Viggo Mortensen, Gary Oldman
    • The G-man: Christopher Walken, Robert Patrick, Sean Bean
    • Dr. Isaac Kleiner: Kurtwood Smith, Michael Gross
    • Dr. Eli Vance: Danny Glover, Morgan Freeman
    • Alyx Vance: Freema Agyeman
    • Barney Calhoun: John Turturro
    • Adrian Shephard: Topher Grace
    • Dr. Gina Cross: undecided
    • Dr. Colette Green: undecided
    • Dr. Wallace Breen: Ian McKellen
    • Dr. Arne Magnusson: undecided
    • Father Grigori: undecided, maybe Peter Stormare
    • Colonel Odessa Cubbage: undecided
    • Dr. Richard Keller: Jeff Bridges, Nick Nolte
    • Dr. Rosenberg: undecided
    • Uriah: undecided
    • Chell: Michelle Rodriguez
    • GLaDOS: Ellen McLain
    Another thing to consider is that Universal already owns the rights to Half-Life. So why not a Half-Life/Portal movie?
  • Since Bioshock played a lot like Doom 3 (ie. I was bored after an hour), I image the movie will be a lot like it's counterpart as well. And they sincerely wring their hands about dropping attendance at theatres and pirated movies? They actually want us to pay for this rubbish?

    Iron man is a case in point. Interesting for the first hour, then repetitive (in the sense of "I've seen this movie before") for the second hour.

    I'd like to see people complain about movies and try to get their money back. That will

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close