Halo in studios, now

Mr.Gates should just pay for this himself. Hell, he should take a shot at directing it too.

Its a video game movie, whats the worst that could happen?

Resident Evil: Apocalypse

They change Master Chief into an ass kicking single mom who kicks ass, takes alien names, and looks good while doing it.

Seriously, why do these "adaptations" find it to be a good idea to change main characters?

They're not changing the main character. The filmmakers pretty much have to follow a "bible" set up by the game developers if they want to keep it, seeing as MS has a stranglehold on the project.

Still, if the script isn't up to snuff...

blah, I want a Interstate '76 movie....

I know they will be keeping Chief.

I was being sarcastic, and taking a stab at films that ass rape the original license that worked, into something that doesn't work.

If they showed the first season of Red vs. Blue, I'd be there.

I know. I was just, uh, you know...

Well, crap, you caught me.

I wonder what Halo fanboys reactions will be when critics bash the story. They seem to think Halo has a good one, but I, being a fan of Sci-Fi, see it as the true mash of tired cliches I have seen before and better. I don't like MC either. He's a walking cliche.

Thank Christ you're here to enlighten the masses.

I don't care if you don't agree. The story is shit. You're entitled to your opinion, as wrong as it may be.

I'm not defending or even mentioning the story. I'm calling you a twat.

That's nice. I don't care that you think that. Never asked for your opinion on me. I was just saying the plot wasn't good. I'm sure if it was about a game you don't give a shit about, you wouldn't be saying it.

As much fun as this game was, the story is kind of shitty. Not the whole thing, but really just the big twist about Halo's purpose at the end. The fact that a "weapon" is created to destroy all life capable of carrying the Flood parasite instead of destroying the Flood itself was just plain silly to me. If the Forerunner race were so intelligent they could have thought up something better. Really.

I dunno... the general public is going to look at this as another videogame movie, and from what I can tell, that has a bit of a negative stigma behind it. Why are they willing to take part in a ridiculous HALO bidding war? I've never played the game; can someone fill me in as to what's so different from this potential property and something like FINAL FANTASY or RESIDENT EVIL?

It's another alien invasion sort of storyline. Really, there isn't a lot to set it apart from movies like Aliens or Starship Troopers (not to say those movies are incredibly similar, but Halo is sort of a middle ground between the two).

There are elements of a zombie storyline as well, since a parasitic entity called The Flood is able to inhabit the bodies of both aliens and humans. And of course there is a plot about an ancient race of creatures that once tried to contain/destroy the Flood, and that's where the structure known as Halo comes into the picture.

While playing the game I really didn't pick up on much of the story. It wasn't until I was looking forward to Halo 2 that I really bothered piecing it all together. It's nothing terribly groundbreaking.

Because Halo is a different kind of beast than the Resident Evils and the Tomb Raiders that are sold to the lowest bidder. I don't know exact numbers, but when Halo 2 came out it felt like opening day of Phantom Menace all over again. Stores had midnight release parties. There was ads, posters, billboards. Halo 2 sold more copies in its opening day than most games sell over their entire shelf life. It's gotten to a point of cultural immersion where people who don't even know how play an XBOX can recognize Master Chief. The studios realize that this is the Harry Potter of video games, and whomever wins the bidding war has a garunteed smash.

I'm sure Alex Garland came up with something nice. He isn't exactely Paul Anderson, is he?

I own Halo and I don't really know what Master Chief looks like beyond a chump in a spacesuit. I think comparing it to TPM is a bit nuts, cause y'know, there's a slight difference between video game nerds lining up at Best Buy and the entire world waiting to see one movie.

I'm really hoping they do NOT do the video game plot, playing the game trilogy is good enough for me, i dont really want to see that story again on the big screen. I'm wishing for them to adapt the Fall of Reach. I think that would turn out to be a great flick, and it would work out for the people who never knew anything about Halo becasue it shows the creation of the spartan project, and the discovery of the Covenant. I also think the commando-like teamwork between the spartan teams would be far more entertaining than the one man army theme the game was about. There wasnt any Flood, but hey, thats whats sequels are for.

First of all, no it's not. Secondly, let's not get revisionist with our history here. Tomb Raider in particular was hot shit in Hollywood back around 1999/2000. In fact, Eidos were trumpeting it in much the same way Microsoft are crowing about the Halo movie.

Gamers - and the games industry - can be pretty blinkered when it comes to our precious hobby, and there's a serious case of penis envy going on when we compare it to movies.

Halo 2 did amazing business for a video game when it came out, no question. And Microsoft made a lot of noise about how it made more money than any movie opening in history.

Of course, movie tickets don't cost $50 a go, but let's not take the shine of the achievement, eh?

It's this built-in audience that the studios are essentially buying. They're buying a brand, and the brand loyalty of the customers.

But as for Halo 2 being Harry Potter of games, or Master Chief having "cultural immersion"?

Please. Let's get some perspective.

He's a guy in a spacesuit. Halo 2 did enormous business, but the world at large didn't really notice. Even people who have no interest in movies knew that a new Star Wars movie came out in 1999. That's cultural immersion.

In the realm of games, Master Chief would have to get way back in a line behind Mario, Sonic and Lara Croft for mainstream recognition factor. He's got no personality. Hell, he hasn't even got a face.

He's not even multi-format - which also helps to explain the huge success of Halo 2. Of course it was a massive success - what else were Xbox owners going to buy that month?

So Microsoft know they've got a popular, but rather generic, franchise on their hands. That's why they're doing stunts like this, making out that Halo is something more prestige than Doom or Bloodrayne. Getting a credible author to write a screenplay? Forcing studios to take it as a done deal, as if the Halo universe is some intricate and subtle creation that must be protected from the neanderthal Hollywood machine?

Nonsense.

It's space monsters versus a genetically engineered super soldier. It's Universal Soldier meets Starship Troopers, and it's a pitch that no studio would use to wipe their arses without the Microsoft marketing muscle and reasonably decent built-in audience.

All the things that make Halo popular are things that are only apparent when you have a joypad in your hand. It's not the story, or Master Chief. It's the gameplay, the visuals, the pacing of the interactive experience.

Halo: The Movie may very well turn out to be a damn fine action movie. But let's not get carried away with how world-changing this pseudo-franchise actually is.

Did I say world changing? I was only reasoning why studios would be more interested in getting into a bidding war for the Halo franchise rights than another video game. The Harry Potter comparison wasn't in terms of the quality of the story, it was in that whichever studio gets the rights has a pre-sold moneymaker tied up in a pretty box. The movie's story and quality is anyone's guess, but all I'm saying is that as of right now, Halo is the cloest thing studios can get to a sure thing when it comes to videogame adaptions.

Dan's so rad.

Isn't he just?

You compared it to Star Wars and Harry Potter in terms of awareness and "cultural immersion", and said that it's a "different kind of beast than the Resident Evils and the Tomb Raiders".

Maybe you didn't say "world changing", but I still think you've got a distorted view of how important the Halo brand is.

I guarantee the studios will be viewing Halo in the exact same way they viewed Resident Evil and Tomb Raider - how many teenagers will we get through the door opening weekend, and how cheap can we make this?

All Microsoft's smoke and mirrors with the script and the "take it now or miss out forever" ultimatum is pure hokum, designed to distract the studios from the fact they're bidding on a property that, on a pure content/story level, would be better suited to the world of Robot Jox.

Outside of the games industry, Halo means little. There's no hook. Just an impressive sales chart.

Does that make it the closest thing to a slam dunk in videogame movies? Maybe. I'm sure the makers of Doom feel the same, just as the makers of RE and TR probably thought a few years back. Converting gamers into moviegoers isn't quite as easy as they thought, and I'm sure the studios are looking at the woeful history of games-to-movies before they get their chequebook out.

You can scoff at Resident Evil and Tomb Raider going to the lowest bidder (which they clearly didn't) but I'd be amazed if a major studio is prepared to drop a serious wad for Halo, especially with the restrictions Bungie have placed on it.

It'll probably go to a mid-level shingle - a Revolution or Screen Gems - who can stump up a $30m to $60m budget and earn it back from fanboy repeat business and DVD sales.

Because, at the end of the day, and despite Microsoft's attempts to paint Halo as something loftier than all the other videogame properties, even the biggest fish in the games pond is plankton compared to the real moneymaking franchises out there.

Halo may be slightly bigger plankton than the rest, but that doesn't make Master Chief a household name. Not by a long shot.

I really don't see how this will work if the story is centered around the Master Chief, at least in terms of sticking faithfully to the video game. He never takes his helmet off, never. And that simply won't work in the movie world. People gotta see mouth movement, otherwise it will look like a Power Ranger's movie. We really don't want that.

Nah, there were just movie nerds lining up to see it opening day.

Oh yes.

Wait... this guy's seriously named Master Chief?

Look like they got a deal. Universal and Fox would co-produce this movie.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/10/bu...gewanted=print

Garland wrote the script?


Eh.

Well, it seems chans beat me to it...

http://chud.com/news/3298

So who will be playing Cortana - Milla Jovovich or Kate Beckinsale?

I, naturally, will play Master Chief. To infinity, and beyond!

I don't think there's a good way to approach this movie. Everything comes off really derivative and two-dimensional. Probably their best bet would be a War of the Worlds/ID4 approach but in this day and age that's a 100+ million dollar budget.

I personally would rather have a Half Life adaptation; now this has potential to be a great sci-fi horror.

It’ll make a change to see the Master Chief without having to endure the laughter of friends shocked at my complete inability to play the game.

“Err … which button makes him drive the tank di … oh BOLLOCKS – dead again!”

Halo 2 made much more money in its first day than The Phantom Menace.

Hell, no movie will ever make more money in its first day.

So... try again.

As Dan said:

One ticket to the theater - five bucks or so.

One copy of Halo 2 - Fifty dollars.

Is this getting through to you?

A movie ticket on the opening day for 5 bucks? Where?

And check the actual numbers, buddy. How much money it made in its first day and how many people played this videogame. You have no idea, but you´re only helping prove my point.

Maybe that´s too hard for you to understand?

You cannot compare the first day sales gross of a fifty dollar videogame (at least), to the first day sales gross of five to ten dollar movie tickets. The price differential is too high. Halo 2 had the best opening day sales for a videogame of all time, and it wasn't too shabby a number, but comparing it to opening gross of a film on its first day is a fallacious argument, at best. At worst, it's dishonest and stupid.

The Rock's agents are foaming at the mouth at this.

Then compare the final US numbers between big budget movies like those and Halo 2.

Stupid is people that know nothing about the game industry dismissing the popularity of a game.

The argument started by some people ignoring the game´s popularity and saying there´s no comparison between a big movie and a big game. The fact of the matter is that videogames make more money and have more "fans" than most movies. Saying there´s no comparison between a movie "everybody wants to watch" and a videogame is the kind of thing an alienated movie nerd would say.

Just educate yourself about the market first, then type your BS.

But for the sake of this stupid argument, let's do some math. According to THIS ARTICLE, Halo 2 sold roughly 500,000 units on its first day. That's units, mind you. Not total gross. The total gross would be somewhere in the $150 million range. Again, that's a great number. No denying that.

According to Box Office Mojo, the opening day gross of The Phantom Menace was $50,013,859. Now, I don't have an exact number of tickets sold, but according to most sites, the average US ticket price is $6.4. But let's give it a bit more of a conservative estimate. Let's say everyone that went and saw Star Wars on opening day paid $8 for their tickets. Do the division, carry the one, doop de doo...

That's 6,251,732 tickets sold on the opening day. Six and a quarter million units sold on the first day.

Compare that to 500,000 units sold on the first day.

Does this make sense now? Does it make sense why you can't compare the two? The price differential is too high to use the opening day gross as a comparison of market share.

Sigh.

Here's the deal. In 24 hours, a theater can only show a movie a certain number of times. Over a day in a game store, especially one that opens at midnight, it'll be open for probably fifteen to sixteen hours, where it can sell any number of units in that time.

I know how much it made. I know how many people bought it. I don't know exactly how many people saw TPM, but let's be serious. We're arguing the cultural significance of Star Wars vs Halo. It's not hard to see which is bigger, more popular, whatever. Christ, TETRIS has more cultural immersion than Halo. I know there's been this huge circle-jerk created over the game by its lovers, but face facts. It ain't as big as you think it is.

I've worked in the media side of the industry. Dan whitehead is an expert in it. So please, leave the snappy comebacks until you know what you're talking about.

teh halo movie will suck!!!!1!11!

I've worked in the games industry since 1991. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

Halo 2 is a very successful videogame. The distribution, pricing and sales channels for games are completely different to those of theatrical movies. Just because they are both entertainment doesn't mean you can compare like for like.

But as I said all the way above, where games are concerned there's always someone who wants to measure their dick against the movie industry.

Let's not get carried away.

And just for the sake of the Devil's Advocates in the room, let's say the ticket price for TPM across the board was $15. That's a pretty conservative estimate, as I know I've never paid that much for a ticket in my life.

Tickets sold under that would be 3,334,257. That's still over six times the number of units sold in Halo 2's first day of release.

No one is denying that Halo 2 made mad money. But the videogame market and the film market are not the same, and aren't comparable. When movie theaters start charging $50 for a movie, or game companies start charging $10 for a game, then we'll talk.