Halo Movie Prospects Still Alive
Wednesday, August 6th, 2008It has been quite a while since I had heard any buzz concerning the Halo movie. But recently I read an article over at Kotaku stating that there is another script being worked currently. Stuart Beattie, the writer of the recent Pirates movies has replaced Peter Jackson and his crew to write the second Halo Movie script. Apparently the second treatment is based on the events of the first Halo novel, Fall of Reach. Kotaku goes on to say that the script is kicking around in Hollywood and that a few people are very interested.
Click Here to read their full article. Oh, and they passed along this piece of conceptual art that Latino Review got their hands on from the movie. Turns out this scene from the book actually made it into the current version of the script.
Posted By:
25 Comments
Subscribe to Comments FeedLeave a Reply
Book of the Month
Y The Last Man Vol. 5In this final Deluxe Edition hardcover collecting Y #49-60, Yorick and Agent 355 prepare for their ultimate quest to reunite the last man with his lost love, while the person, people or thing behind the disaster that wiped out half of humanity is revealed. Then, Yorick Brown's long journey through an Earth populated only by women comes to its dramatic, unexpected conclusion.
A Fall of Reach movie could really work well as a film, but I still have very little hope that this is actually going to happen.
On the one hand, people are retarded if they don’t make this happen. Halo is money in the bank. With that said, greed will probably be the doom of the project. Early reports on the initial report were that Microsoft was asking for such a large portion of the profit (And some upfront money, if I’m not mistaken), that it would’ve been nearly impossible to turn a decent profit for the studios. Still, Halo and Bioshock could do pretty well as movies, I think. So I still hope that they both end up getting made and being decent.
No film is money in the bank. If superman can loose money then Halo is guaranteed anything. I read that the latest Narnia movie was among the least profittable films ever made.
I would argue that Halo would be a financially risky project. Sure to be expensive, The video game source material carries with it bad connotations and it’s unlikely to attract a reliable director.
What’s the box office track record for video game films? I guess the Resident Evil movies (produced on the cheap) are successful. I can’t think of any successful ones.
@ “If superman can loose money then Halo is guaranteed anything. ”
Well that sentence makes a lot sense. I’m sure y’all get the point.
But if they do make a Halo movie, I think it should be this story. I love the first game, but on film it would need some serious overhaul
@Rusty: Superman has never been a huge film franchise. Big, sure. But it’s not like it sales itself. Or a huge franchise in general, for that matter. You are looking at it from a fan’s perspective. As far as I’ve seen from comic sales charts, Superman isn’t even in the top of Comic book sales. Halo is a top tier entertainment franchise of the modern era.
When I said Money in the bank, I meat that the money is there, waiting to be harvested. Not that it’s assured, at all. Heaven knows that a Super Mario Bros caliber movie would prevent even the best franchise from turning a profit. After all, Dungeons and Dragons SHOULD have made bank, judging by the popularity of the franchise. But its utter disregard for story telling, its inability to take itself seriously, and the negative connotations the brand has with non-fans all but assured its failure
Actually, my thought is that the movie is a lot my your Superman example. Was it a failure? Sure. Based on the current climate of Superhero movies, the expectations, budget, etc. It was a total failure. But it’s not like the movie didn’t freaking sell. It made $200 million domestically. $391 worldwide. Plus DVD sales, licensed materials, etc. The problem is that the movie was budgeted at $271 million dollars. When you add in all the failed attempts in recent years to get the movie rolling, this was a very expensive movie. But $391 million dollars would be plenty of money to make a movie successful. And we are talking about a movie that just wasn’t very good. Imagine if it had been widely considered the best movie of the franchise. It could have made serious money.
I liken that to Halo. Is it guaranteed that it will turn a profit? No. But if you handle it right, get all the hands out of the cookie jar, and make a solid movie, then it’s as close to guaranteed as it comes. Directors kill for a built in audience. I loved Transformers. A lot of people didn’t. But half of the job of putting butts in seats with that title was performed by it being one of the most popular toy lines and animated shows. It’s been on the air for over 20 years now. That’s a market that reaches to everyone 30 and below. Did they still have to make a showing of it? Of course. But they didn’t need to bring the initial crowd.
Randy, c’mon now.
@ “Superman has never been a huge film franchise.”
Yes it has.
@ “Directors kill for a built in audience.”
Really? How did Neil Blomkamph get the job then? Which directors have ever fought to be involved with a video game movie? I’m of the opinion that this is one of the main issues that’s held video games back.
My only point was that no film is a guaranteed hit. Not anything about how much Superman Returns would’ve made if… or why people went to see transformers… or whatever about D&D. Just that no film can just coast by on its name alone. If that’s not what you were sayin’ then we agree.
And also I think you’ve over estimated the potential audience for a Halo movie. I’m sure it’s a popular video game but success in one medium doesn’t prove success in another. At least stuff like Superman or Smurfs or something has proven longevity and crossover appeal.
@Rusty: Superman was pretty big for it’s time, granted. #10 and #21 for the first 2 movies’ highest spots. But I said huge, and I said franchise. In other words, look at the big picture. How was Superman Returns guaranteed anything when the two movies before it did $59 and $15 million? You are indicating that Superman Returns should have been as close to a sure thing as any movie, and that’s just not the case. It has failed before, and failed hard. Not everyone has a positive image of the franchise as a whole.
Neil Blomkamph got the job because Peter Jackson, who is a very big director (Maybe you’ve heard of him), became the producer and insisted that he get the director duties.
And before you start dismissing my points, I realize what your point was about films not being a guaranteed hit. I said guaranteed money. There is a big difference. Was Tomb Raider a hit? No. Did it make money. Moderately, for what it was. A built in audience is a built is audience. That’s why people buy existing franchises and turn them into movies. Does anyone seriously think the Wachowski Brothers wanted to make a movie about “that really deep cartoon with hilarious dubbing”?
Don’t get me wrong, the movie still has to be good. As does any movie. But certain properties virtually sell themselves if that’s the case. All the video games to this point have been God Awful. But a lot of them have turned a profit that they would not have, without that franchise name behind it.
Nobody Knows Nothing when it comes to what people will go to see at the movies
I honestly do think that the Wachowski bros did want to make Speed Racer, it wasn’t really a big existing franchise as we can see from the films box office especially since the cartoon was released in both the US and Japan, it’s not big enough for worldwide franchise appeal. I think they were big fans of the cartoon and had a vision for how they’d love to see it on the big screen. Also if memory serves Superman Returns technically didn’t lose money, it just didn’t make enough, like the old Popeye movie. I don’t think a Halo movie should be made, I just think video game movies are starting to be seen for what they really are, shit, if you look lately their box office returns aren’t exactly spectacular, did anybody actually see Hitman?
I think Hitman’s a bad example. The video game series isn’t as well known (or as interesting) as Halo. Plus, “Timothy Olyphant IS Hitman” ain’t exactly gonna get asses in seats
@Jack: So video game movies are crap so we should stop trying? I’m glad they put a stop on those superhero movies after Batman and Robin and Catwomam. :P
If there are two movies that can be done well from video games, IMO, it’s Bioshock and Halo. Bioshock could easily be the most amazing of any potential Video Game movies because I think that you could capture the Art Deco style and thematic feeling of the game pretty easily. Halo will be a little harder, because of the Covenant. And obviously The Flood will just have to be nearly dropped from any story that makes it to film.
But then again, I also thought Tomb Raider stood a good chance of being made into an excellent Video Game adaptation. After all, it’s Indiana Jones with a hot leading lady. But it was too confined, not fantastical enough, and ultimately felt “Hollywoodified”. Still, I am convinced that it’s the effort that has went into the game, not the games themselves that are the problem.
I think what we really need to kick things off is a video game movie that people don’t necessarily associate with video games. Much like Sin City, V for Vendetta, and 300 were comic book movies that many non-comic fans (Or at least non-geeks) may not instantly recognize as a movie adapted from comic form. Hitman could have been that movie, but it didn’t exactly have a stellar advertising campaign. Did anyone see it? Was it any good? The video game series never interested me, so as an extension, neither did the movie.
I’ve heard really bad things about Hitman the Movie, so I’m not about to try. I think that all we need is one good video game movie to show Hollywood (and us) that it can be done. Maybe it’ll be Prince of Persia?
I don’t see the point of video game movies. The story has been told when they made the game. The only people who watch video games movies are people how liked the game to begin with. So why make a movie of it? Apart from for the money That is
Becuase the filmmakers believe that there’s an interesting way for the story to be told through the medium of film
@Alex
You know Alex, I think you’re right. I suddenly don’t see the point of comic book movies. The story has been told when they made the comic book, and the only people who watch comic book movies are people who liked the comic to begin with. So why make a movie?
That mentality is EXACTLY what people were saying about comic movies before this renaissance of good movies began with Blade in the mid/late 90s. Some say X-men, but the first Blade was the movie the proved that it could be done and done well. Plus, it just feeds Randy’s theory (which I completely agree with BTW) that it’s going to take a lesser known video game with a solid story to start the trend of quality.
Sorry but, Randy is 100% right. It doesn’t matter where the story is coming from. All that matter is the quality of the eventual product. If we get a good one, Hollywood will see that if we put talented writer/directors on video game based projects, rather than Uwe Boll and Paul WS Anderson, people will come see it. People just want good movies, they don’t care where it comes from.
Hey, can we get a Pineapple Express thread going please? I’m dying to know what some of you guys thought of it!
Ok firstly @TNN I don’t think that there is a difference in medium between a well made computer game and a well made film you just do less when you watch the film
and @TheDoctor When you put it like that I really don’t have an argument
I’m going to slink off and lick my wounds
No difference!? Dude, with all due respect, a well made video game can do things that even the best film can’t do, just as a great film can unlock emotions video games just can’t unlock. Think about the best films, “The Godfather Pt. II,” “Casablanca,” and now think of the video games that really stuck with you. When you think about your games, you remember what it felt like to accomplish a hard task, or the experience of living inside of that particular world. You remember it almost like you do a vacation. But with film, it’s all about watching a story unfold in front of you, not participating in it.
Let me put it this way; “The Dark Knight” would make a boring video game. Or at least, a very awkward one
Final Fantasy VII says that a well made video game can unlock the emotions that a well made movie can unlock. :)
But I totally agree with you TNN. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but they are completely different experiences. And if they aren’t, you are doing something wrong. :)
And there’s something so powerful about video games with a great story. I remember how…awesome I felt at the end of games like “Fable,” “Halo” and “Jak II.” It’s like being in a summer blockbuster.
@ “You are indicating that Superman Returns should have been as close to a sure thing as any movie”
Randy, that’s the opposite of my point. I’m saying NO film is at all close to a sure thing. If a popular franchise with huge name recognition like Superman I & II can descend to the depths of Superman IV (I actually enjoy Superman III) then nothing is bullet proof. I think next week a star wars movie opens that will test my theory further.
TotallyNotNick managed to sum up my thoughts on the subject with a brevity that has totally eluded me.
“Nobody Knows Nothing when it comes to what people will go to see at the movies”
@ “I suddenly don’t see the point of comic book movies.”
Scott, it’s funny that you’re being sarcastic because I actually do think like that sometimes. More about actual adaptations like V for Vendetta or Ghost World. Sin City left me with that feeling in a major way.
@ “I don’t think that there is a difference in medium between a well made computer game and a well made film you just do less when you watch the film”
Alex, I hope you dont feel ganged up on, but that’s pretty much the definition of a different medium.
@Rusty: My “Money in the Bank” comment was more directed toward the built in audience of a movie rather than the fact that it would instantly make a profit. I think Halo as a video game is also a cash cow, but obviously it still has to be good. If you had Halo & Barbie’s Horse Adventure, not so much. But a solid Halo game has that built in market. Same with a movie. If it’s a good movie, it has a built audience. It’s the advantage to a nearly identical movie that does not have that built in audience. I think we are really arguing semantics at this point, though :)
I just wanted to jump in here and say that I actually saw Hitman in the theater last year, and it was…..okay. It wasn’t horrible, and it wasn’t great. It had a couple really cool scenes in it, and Timothy Olyphant was pretty good in the role. However, the movie had way too many problems in the story, the editing, and other performances to be anything more than just another poor adaptation of a video game.
Honestly, I think a halo movie would net big. Superman is lame and really shouldn’t be compared to. The movie was terrible and honestly, I think most of the younger generation is a heck of a lot less interested in superman than halo. I do agree that its not surefire and if microsoft keeps being greedy assholes and trying to siphon all the money from the project, it is going to fail. But, if not, I could really see this being an amazing movie. I feel like in this type of movie, you’ll sell tickets if the movie has intense visual gratification supported by atleast decent acting and storyline. In the case of halo, you have PLENTY of room for intense visual gratification and a great storyline to work off of (fall of reach). If a good cast is added to this, I feel like it is definitely a formula for a successful movie.