MrHateYourself said:
You mean, like Starship Troopers? Based on something more popular and influencial than Halo, with an internationally acclaimed director?
Since when was Paul Veerhoeven a an "internationally acclaimed" director? 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. 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?
Or Godzilla, from some of the 90s' biggest hitmakers?
You mean the very same that sits at #89 amongst the 100 highest grossing films of all time? Oh yeah, that one tanked BAD.
Joss Whedon's FIrefly series?
I'm sure TV series have box-office reciepts in your own imaginary little wolrd. Idiot.
Soldier, from another huge hitmaker?
Paul W. Anderson, a "huge hitmaker"? And you had the audacity to call this hack as someone with "talent"?
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?
Matrix Revolutions? Funny, there seems to be a HUGE list of tanked scifi films from "talented and respected people". But we've covered that ground.
Matrix Revolutions still made almost 425 millions dollars worlwide, making it the 69th highest grossing film of all time. 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.
Talent doesn't equal box office success. It has very little to do with it. (see, again, X3 or The Omen Remake for talentless success; see any number of brilliant flops for proof that talent isn't marketable in an art field.)
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.
Passion of the Christ, maybe, as it's an indie film; one could argue Star Wars as they are technically indie films; beyond those....seems to be that they're all studio movies that have pulled a huge international audience, unlike the Asian flop/nonAmerican "pretty good" story that is Halo.
http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide
SO, where are those "at least 20"?
There's something about Mary (360 million) - you might justify this by calling Cameron Diaz a "superstar". Unfortunately for you, one look at her resume shows a whole line of films that sinked at the box office.
Notting Hill (360 million) - again, you might attribute this to Julia Robert's popularity, but we all know that doesn't make sense since both she and Mel Gibson couldn't stop Conspiracy Theory from becoming a box office blunder.
Dances with Wolves (424 million) - I can almost foresee you yet again trying to pin this on Kevin Costner's popularity (even though it mattered jack **** when Waterworld tanked), but this film was released in 1990, prior to which nobody gave a damn about him. Sure he appeared in a couple of films here and there, but nowhere near enough to score 424 million.
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.
Home Alone (533 million) - Another one I'll be eagerly waiting to see your explaination for.
Raiders of the Lost Ark (383 million) - Sure, one can say "OMG it's Steven Spielberg, how can it NOT be successful"? Little do they know that he wasn't as big a name back then as he was 10 years laer. After Jaws, Steve was a one-hit wonder, with his next big film, 1941, failing to be a commercial success. Even his film Empire of the Sun, that was released AFTER Indiana Jones, could not find mainstream popularity like Jaws and Raiders did.
Independence Day (811 million) - a cheesy alien invasion flick that neither had a big-name director nor a big-name cast.
Pirates of the Carribean (653 million) - we all know this was a suprise hit. No one expected a film based on a theme park ride by director that made like 2 films that were barely decent, only one of which was a box office success.
Passion of the Christ (604 million) - by your own admission
Star Wars (797 million) - by your own admission
Pretty Woman (463 million) - I'd like you to enlighten me how the hell did this film make so much money...
The Mummy (413 million) - Was it the cast? Nope? Big-name director? Nope. Based on a best-selling novel? Not that either. But still the 74th highest grossing film of all time. Pharoah would be proud.
Ghost (517 million) - another I'd kill to see you explain away.
My Big Fat Greek Wedding (356 million) - oh and this one too.
Armageddon (554 million) - already discussed this one.
Day after Tomorrow (527 million) - this one too. Not a well-known property but still made big bucks.
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?
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.
Speaking again of Halo sales, where are the sales figures for the map pack? If Halo is so unstoppably **** hot, shouldn't that have outsold the original as well?
The map pack was an optional multiplayer add-on that only works if you ALREADY HAVE THE ORIGNAL game. 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, well. OK. You're right. If only the studios would listen to the wise Microsoft, who's Hollywood success story we all know. Hey, wait, no-Microsoft has no experience in the Hollywood field, where as Hollywood does.
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.
Seems that Hollywood has a fair point in saying what historically does and doesn't work. Not that Hollywood looks at numbers, apparrently; except when the numbers support your arguements. They took notice-then realized the simple fact that even high video game numbers are insignificant to ticket sales.
Hollywood's been wanting to make a Halo movie ever since they saw Halo's sales figures. And that it was MS's sky-high demands and a disagreement between the two parties that resulted in then parting ways. But alas, if only you had the basic intellectual capacity to even read news articles instead of being soaked in your own inane assumptions:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/news.html?sid=6131735&mode=news
The Bungie-developed Halo franchise, which has seen more than $600 million in sales since 2001's Halo: Combat Evolved, owns claim to the top two best-selling Xbox games of all time. Halo 2, released in November 2004, eclipsed $125 million in sales on its first day of release. With such impressive numbers, the property caught Hollywood's eye, leaving many to speculate that a movie deal would be imminent.
However, negotiating a movie deal proved as challenging as taking down a Covenant dropship, as several studios surprisingly passed on producing a Halo movie. The reason: Film studios may be used to kowtowing to A-list actors' demands, but they don't typically cave in to requests from non-Hollywood players. Initial reports saw the software giant asking for $10 million against 15 percent of the gross (whichever is higher), a below-the-line budget of $75 million (budget before hiring actors and crew), near-immediate production of the movie, and a large say in the creative development of the movie.
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/news.html?sid=6127059&mode=news
Variety reports the software giant wants a movie version of its sci-fi shooter fast-tracked, but its steep demands are causing studios to pass.
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117927889.html?categoryid=1238&cs=1&s=h&p=0
When Microsoft first hit studios with the script in June, delivered by messengers dressed as Master Chief, it had a long list of deal points, including $10 million against 15% of the gross, extensive creative control and quick progress to production (Daily Variety, June 7).
It was the details of Microsoft's involvement that took several months to finalize, since financials were largely worked out by mid-June (Daily Variety, June 10).
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:
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/news.html?sid=6131735&mode=news
Fox and Universal eventually bent and accepted the project, paying Microsoft $5 million against 10 percent of the gross. Universal will oversee production and domestic distribution, and Fox will handle all overseas operations.
No, ******, there IS no proven formula or there'd be no such thing as flops; EVERY movie would follow the formula because it'd be solid gold.
By formula, I meant there are certain common elements amongst all blockbusters that give a general picture of what would or would not work. 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, "******"?
THERE is a more accurate statement. And those studio execs have the idea that historically, video game movies are a flop. They know the basics for a common success, they know the basics for a likely flop "An Italian philanthropher writes his memoirs about his life as a daisy picker, shot on black and white DV, spoken in German, with no sound mixing, and starring Jim from down the block who used to be a full time Extra in the 80s? Brilliant!"...see, THAT is not something you'll ever hear from Hollywood because of flop history.
Just as "$150-200 million plus marketing, and a huge chunk of the profit to Microsoft, to make a movie about a video game that explodes on one game console but fails when brought to the general public (PC)? Brilliant! Video games have a history of producing hits, and hundreds of millions is a paltry amount of money!" is not something you'll hear.
Like I said, the most apparent logical paradox in your argument is that bloat like an idiot about the studios backing out of the project because "historically it wouldn't work", yet can't realize the simple fact that Fox and Universal bent over for Microsoft only because they wanted the rights so bad and they thought that it was a "safe enough" prospect in which they'd get a good chunk of the pie, even AFTER sharing it with MS. And do you know WHY exactly did the studios bail out?
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117952317.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
While rumors had the studios concerned over a budget that was rising above the original projected $135 million pricetag, the filmmakers said the double defection 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.
Oh and I'd really like to see a credible source that states the studios backed out because they thought it " a Halo movie wouldn't work", aside from your own meaningless babble of course. Otherwise, I doubt you're either Fox's or Universal's public relations officer to know some kind "hidden, inside story" that the trades aren't reporting.
You match the numbers to the numbers-notice that Square turned a profit with Advent Children? How do you think they decided on the budget for it, by rolling dice? They looked at the known audiences and spent comparitively to decrease the odds of loss.
Yeah, like how scored "looked at the known audiences and spent comparitively" with Final Fantasy Spirits Within, which was the second biggest animated box office bomb in history.
Halo does not have Hollywood legs.
In Hollywood, "legs" are measured on the basis of how good or otherwise a film is. 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...
Because history has shown that everything that is made to be, becomes! Augh, WHEN will Hollywood learn that TRYING is the only thing that brings success!
Haha, you undercut your own point there by not even realizing the fact that success can NEVER be achieved without trying.
WHY can't they listen to children on the internet who have no experience in the field, WHY!?
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".
Yeah, no one knew who Tom Hanks was in the 80s.
Did you even read what I said, chump? I never said "no one knew Tom Hanks". I said he wasn't a big enough star to get his films to cross the 650 million mark. And 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.
AND having Zemekis, a person with a history of hits, surely wasn't a factor either. Paramount probably never even LOOKED at HIS resume!
That could be a factor, but then again, by that same token, one could say that a film with Peter Jackson attached to it and WETA - the Academy Award winning studio which is currently the premiere FX house on the face of the planet doing the special effects work alone should be enough to get mainstream movie-goers sit up and take notice. And from the looks of his short films, Neil Bokgamp appears to be a pretty talented guy who knows well how to handle a film like this.
The book sales couldn't have factored either.
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?
But its only good for so much. You can't BANK on getting good word of mouth, that's like saying "Dude, I promise you'll make your $200 mil back on Halo, some kids on the internet said so! They even said their friends would go!"
Yet by some sort of magical perception of the future that you've been so "gifted" with, 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. Heck, I think my sarcasm here is getting killed by your stupidity.
Jeez, READ what I was talking about first, jackass. You presented Oldboy as an example of a good movie that didn't make money and I exposed the logical fallacy in your argument by highlighting the fact that Oldboy was a foreign film with limited distribution which was why it never stood much of a chance to make any impressive numbers to begin with, 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.
), my point still stands and you're still wrong. 
t:
