Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Fox And Universal Say Goodbye To Halo Movie

Posted by Zonk on Fri Oct 20, 2006 10:11 AM
from the series-of-unfortunate-events dept.
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Peter Jackson Talks the Halo Movie 90 comments
Via Kotaku, an interview on Ain't It Cool News with Peter Jackson talking about the in-conception Halo Movie. From the article: "QUINT: Now, there's no reason on Earth shouldn't easily and faithfully be adapted into a PG-13 movie. However, do you anticipate there being a harder cut considering how gruesome the Flood aspect of the story is? PETER JACKSON: That's interesting... It's something, I must admit, that's not a conversation I've had with anybody yet. It's a conversation that I'm sure will happen. Look, the reality of the budget is that I would imagine the studio are going to be pretty insistent on a PG-13, which, as you say, is certainly not an impossible thing pull off."
[+] Halo Film Still On Track 70 comments
Eurogamer reports that, despite the decision by Fox and Universal to back out of the movie's production, the film version of Halo will move forward. From the article: "Now Microsoft has released an official statement via the Bungie website which reads: 'We are disappointed that Universal and Fox wanted to significantly renegotiate the financial points of the deal. But the Halo franchise is hugely popular and our goal remains the same - to find a partner that shares our passion and will creatively collaborate with us to best represent the story and spirit of the Halo franchise ... Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and the rest of the creative team are dedicated to ensuring the Halo movie becomes a reality,' the statement continues.
[+] Halo Movie Postponed, Street Fighter Movie On 76 comments
FofR writes "Given the previous statements concerning the Halo Movie's stalled progress, it should come as no surprise that the movie is now officially on hold." From the article: "At this time Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh, along with their partner, Microsoft, have mutually agreed to postpone making a feature film based on the Halo video game universe until we can fulfill the promise we made to millions of Halo fans throughout the world that we would settle for no less than bringing a first class film to the big screen. We are fully supportive of Director Neill Blomkamp's vision of the film. Neill is a tremendously gifted filmmaker and his preliminary work on Halo is truly awe-inspiring. While it will undoubtedly take a little longer for Halo to reach the big screen, we are confident that the final feature film will be well worth the wait." You'll be happy to know even if a Jackson-inspired Halo isn't coming our way, at least we can look forward to another Street Fighter movie.
[+] News: Halo Movie Is Still Dead 67 comments
1up is reporting that despite numerous reports of its death, the Halo movie isn't quite completely cancelled ... yet. As far as Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, and the WETA folks are concerned, things are still just in a holding pattern. "Kamins also shot down both the rumors of a swelling budget and dissatisfaction with Blomkamp. 'The only budget the filmmakers every spoke about was $145 million less the 12.5% rebate that you get from shooting in New Zealand, which would put it at about $128 million,' said [Jackson representative Ken Kamins]. And of the director, Kamins said, 'Everybody is supremely confident in Neall. Part of what excited Peter and Fran was Neill's vision. We're very confident this film will move forward with the creative partners intact, who will take the film to production.'" Update: 10/30 18:58 GMT by Z : It looks like that post was made from outdated sources.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by manno (848709) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:14AM (#16515737)
    At .2 billion, I can't blame them.
    • To put this into perspective:

      - Batman Begins was estimated at $150,000,000
      - The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was estimated at $93,000,000
      - The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was estimated at $94,000,000
      - The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was estimated at $94,000,000
      - King Kong was estimated at $207,000,000
      - Star Wars Episode III was estimated at $113,000,000
      - X-Men 3 was estimated at $210,000,000

      Long story short, Jackson would have to prove that a video game movie would appeal to a wide enough audience to justify comparing it to King Kong and X-Men 3. Considering that video game movies always do poorly, I can see why the studios don't believe him.
      • by adam (1231) * on Friday October 20 2006, @10:38AM (#16516019)
        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 ;)
        • Sure, Doom barely broke even after dvd/vhs rental (yet they're making a second [last I heard].. so that says something).

          FWIW, I actually thought Doom was the best video game movie ever made. I was especially impressed by the training they received to "look" like real soldiers. If it hadn't pumped up the expectations for extreme violence so much, it probably would have done even better.

          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.

          Let's be honest, though. Tomb Raider sold heavily on sex appeal rather than story line. The movie itself was less than spectacular.

          If we ignore that and take the profits at face value, then we're still nowhere near close enough to make a $200,000,000 movie. The total return on Tomb Raider was less than it would cost to finance a $200,000,000 movie, much less make a profit on it. :(

          I believe is the storyline does its own thing

          I agree completely. The story is key to making a good movie. Traditionally, Comic Book movies only did so-so themselves. That is, until some real talent started stepping up to the plate and adding incredible storytelling behind them. However, comic books have incredible amounts of storyline to pick and chose from. Video Games do not have that luxury, and may even be unsuitable for live-action. (Witness: Super Mario Bros.) In addition, many comic books are culturally iconic, allowing them to reach an audience far beyond the actual readership. This is something that video games rarely share.

          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 ;)

          Actually, that double-green bubble means that I'm a friend of a friend. You never actually marked me as such. But thank you for your kind words. I'd try to keep my comment quality high. :)
        • by Hoi Polloi (522990) on Friday October 20 2006, @11:11AM (#16516485) Journal
          Video game movies are bad ideas. The game is made for interactive play with a story line usually tacked on out of obligation. I'm glad Fox wised up (now if they could just dump their news division). I suspect that some consultants are going to studio heads and pushing the "Look how video games have become a $x billion dollar industry. Look at the demographics! You'd be a fool not to make crappy movies based on them." I'm surprised they aren't soing "World of Warcraft" or "Grand Theft Auto".

          I'm still waiting for "Pac Man, The Movie" starring John Goodman as a man with an uncontrolable appetite who is literally haunted by ghosts from his past. Oh shit, I just spotted it on your list. Please god, send that asteroid now!
        • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:38AM (#16516021)
          There's a difference though. The geeks that grew up with many of the comics that have recently been turned into movies are in their 20s and 30s (or older) and are gainfully employed. Many (but not all) of the geeks who grew up with Halo are still in their teens.
          • by c6gunner (950153) on Friday October 20 2006, @11:08AM (#16516439)
            Yeah, and it's not like Teens go to the movie theaters or anything. Or buy merchandise. In fact, that's why no company anywhere gears their advertising towards teens. It would make no sense, since they don't have any money!
        • by PhilipMckrack (311145) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:55AM (#16516235)
          Because by the time they budgeted X-Men 3, it was pretty well established it would be a success. The budget for X-Men 1 was $75 million. They are comparing Halo to Doom and Mortal Kombat. Following are worldwide gross amounts for a sample of comic and video game movies. Video game movies can be made to be profitable, but $200 million for a budget is very risky.

          Spiderman gross: $821,706,375
          Spiderman 2 gross: $783,924,485
          X-Men gross: $295,999,717
          X-Men 2 gross: $406,400,513
          X-Men 3 gross: $455,360,014
          Hulk gross: $225,600,000
          Daredevil: $179,143,518

          Doom gross: $54,612,337
          Mortal Kombat: $122,133,227
          Tomb Raider: $274,644,183
          Tomb Raider 2: $156,453,758
    • by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:26AM (#16515889) Homepage
      At .2 billion, I can't blame them.

      I can do better than that:

      At .0002 trillion, I can't blame them.
    • by Reverend528 (585549) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:38AM (#16516027) Homepage
      .2 billion

      Most of that budget was going towards film. After all, this was going to be the first movie shot entirely in slow motion.

    • by FofR (697088) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:41AM (#16516059)
      I should point out that the $200m mark is a rumor and Kamins, the representative for Peter Jackson and Fran stated: "The only budget the filmmakers ever spoke about was $145 million less the 12.5% rebate that you get from shooting in New Zealand, which would put it at about $128 million. That was the only number that was ever discussed."

      For more details I suggest heading to http://halomovie.trivialbeing.net/ [trivialbeing.net] where they have a video/news broadcast and some footage of Jackson's response.

      As an aside, they quote: "Microsoft is already in talks with other distribution partners and preparation for the movie will continue. Most of this development is at Peter Jackson's Weta effects studios in New Zealand, so delays should be small."
  • What huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by iolaus (704845) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:14AM (#16515749) Homepage
    Did I read that right? Did the movie studios just make a good decision?
    • by Amiga Lover (708890) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:41AM (#16516063)
      > Did I read that right? Did the movie studios just make a good decision?

      They left out the most important bit of news - Fox and Universal have now gone to Uwe Boll to get the movie made.
  • by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:18AM (#16515791) Homepage
    That film's going to be the most bloated Microsoft product yet!
  • Good Move (Score:5, Funny)

    by vjmurphy (190266) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:20AM (#16515813) Homepage
    Spending 200 million on an untried director with a video-game property. Yep, I'd pull out quicker than you could say "Uwe Boll."
  • by SethEaston (920552) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:20AM (#16515821)
    This movie was DOOMed from the begining!
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:22AM (#16515833) Homepage Journal
    We've already got lots of little Halo movies [roosterteeth.com] which, I suspect, are far better than anything Hollywood could do with it.
  • by 9mm Censor (705379) * on Friday October 20 2006, @10:22AM (#16515847) Homepage
    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.
  • Once they named Paris Hilton to play Cortana I knew the movie wouldn't make it.
  • by tygerstripes (832644) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:50AM (#16516155)
    Why don't they trust Peter Jackson to make this work? I mean, LotR wasn't a great game, but what a movie he made out of it!

    I've heard talk of book-adaptations, but that's just par for the course.

    • Re:other factors (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ScentCone (795499) on Friday October 20 2006, @10:28AM (#16515927)
      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?
    • 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.

      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 :) If it did come out bad, I'd rather it be axed now then damage his reputation later.