WETA/Microsoft put HALO FILM on the back burners :(

[Horrorfan]

I'm actually Zenien.

That's umpossible because your posts are worth reading

 

[Fenrir]

Robocop, Basic Instinct, Total Recall, pretty big hits; and successful in his home country as well.

Yeah, perhaps that's why Robocop is nowhere to be seen in either the Top Worldwide or Domestic box office lists. Total Recall? It barely makes both lists (#243 isn't something to be proud of for someone who is an "internationally acclaimed director). The only one of his films that CAN be called as a big hit is Basic Instinct, but that only makes him a one-hit wonder.

Ohno! Sensationalism! Wait, very little substance....well, he'd be a good fit for Halo....!

Too bad Halo doesn't have a ****load of unncessary blood, gore, profanity and naked chicks every 5 seconds.

See above. Hollow Man did well as well, and cleaned up on the home video/DVD market.

Just because it did better in Home video than it did at the BO, it "cleaned up" on the home video/DVD market? Can you please post sales figures of Hollow Man with comparitive figures of films that ACTUALLY "cleaned up" on the home video market, like you know, The Shawshank Redemption?

If you can't, then you're talking out of your rear end and it's best for you to shut up already.

Indeed it did. It's total gross after all was said and done was double, and then did no business on VHS or DVD? Hit completely rock bottom in America? Yep. But of course, the studio itself refers to Godzilla as a tanker, and we all know that studios don't know what they're doing.

Godzilla didn't do as well as studios hoped, but studios referring to it as a "tanker"? Source please.

"Hit completely rock bottom in America"? Guess in your bizarro world, #181 in the All-Time Highest Domestic Gross equals "rock bottom" eh?

Uh, SERENITY, idiot? TV ratings and DVD sales that fail to recover the cost of the TV series? Huge loss of money before they sank even MORE money into the flick, and then a further loss? I'm sure it only failed because of communists and terrorists-effects driven scifi stories ALWAYS are a hit!

Umm, whatever does that prove, you moron? Serenity was Joss Whedon's FIRST feature film (and a crappy one at that, too) after doing TV shows that had a cult following at best? No wonder it didn't do well. You need to do a re-evaluation of your position before writing anymore crap.

Quote me on that? Yeah, he's a hack. An incredibly successful one.

For an "incredibly successful" hack, none of his films show up in any top box-office grosses list, neither domestic nor worldwide. Maybe you ought to look up the words "incredibly" and "successful" in the dictionary, junior.

Talent has no bearing on the industry. Maybe you've heard of George Lucas, does that name ring more of a bell?

Yeah, perhaps that's why talentless hacks like Ridley Scott, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, Robert Zemeckis and many, many more had absolutely NO BEARING on the industry WHATSOEVER.

OK, I need to go wash my hands after typing that load of utter horse manure.

Again, you fail reading comprehension. Twohy directed a "big budget scifi action flick"! AND it was based on something successful! Big budget scifi action AND popularity NEVER fails at the box office, especially if it's sold a few million copies-just ask anyone involved with the Hitchhiker's Guide!

And whoever said a suckass big budget sci-fi directed by hacks like Twohy would be successful? The only reason many gamers are excited about a Halo because there are actually talented people like Peter Jackson and his famed WETA studio involved with the production, not to mention Bungie's demand about the film staying true to the Halo universe. That's reason enough to be optimistic. Maybe it is YOU who needs a lesson in reading comprehension, chucky?

Maybe if I type C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N slowly you'll get it? It's clearly labeled examples of why scif fi effects pieces are NOT some kind of magical box office gold.

I never said they are, at least not by themselves. But sci-fi effects pieces that are actually good films made by talented and respectable artists in the industry stand a mighty good chance for success, regardless of whether they are based on a known property or not.

Inclusion of Raimi on the list is quite funny, but I'll skip that.

He earned my respect after The Gift, A Simple Plan and Spider-Man 2. He may not be as big as the other names I've mentioned, but he still deserves a spot.

No, it's not. Shrek 2, for instance? The Fast And Furious series? They may carry an influencial name, but you don't have to have talent. Tally up the moderate to huge hits by people who aren't on your list, one or two hit wonders-you'll find a MUCH bigger number. Teen girls didn't flock to Titanic because they saw Cameron's name, nerds didn't flock to LOTR because of Jackson's horror flicks, people didn't scream in terror (despite not being able to be heard in space) because they saw Scott's name, Michael J Fox surely had NOTHING to do with the success of Back To The Future, and Spiderman fans are only fans when Raimi's name is included. They've produced some big hits, but of those the only two names that have any widely influencial draw are Spielberg and Burton....and people go because of the successful history of their films, not because of some technical love. Their talent may produce the goodness, but people only care about the end result.

Give me a break. Talent has EVERYTHING to do with the industry. You say people only care about the "end result" yet can't realize the fact that the "end result" can be good only if the people in charge are ACTUALLY talented. I mean, damn, how stupid can you get?

Those amazing new CG that was all the rage, a hot soundtrack (you'll find a not so surprising correlation in that time period between pop soundtracks and box office success), and a purely moronic "feel good action!" basis. "It was fun and entertaining!"

I simply love how you've proved how much of a spineless wretch you are by not responding to a number of my arguments and I will continue bringing them up throughout the course of this post. For starters:

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.


Anyways, OK, people, let's round up MrHateYourself's criteria and reasons for a film's success -

1. Feel good action.
2. Fun and entertaining.

A careful marketing campaign and the popularity of kids in the 80s probably had nothing to do with it. We all know the truth, though-somebody sold their soul to Satan to get the box office up on that POS.

If you're not being sarcastic, then we have yet another criteria for box office success -

3. Good Marketing campaign

George Lucas, Spielberg, AND Harrison Ford? Only clever lies could have coerced movie goers.

If only you could read what was posted right NEXT to that quote of mine:

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.

Off the heels of the successful Stargate, with the biggest display of new effects, and Will Smith wasn't a star? Nor was Jeff Goldblum? This must have been in Malaysia or somewhere, right?

Jeff Goldblum, a STAR?! BWAHAHAHA! Aside from Jurassic Park, Lost World and Independence Day, good luck trying to find any film of his that was a box office success.

As for our ongoing criteria, we have yet another -

4. A marvelous display of special effects

A niche film (religion), first huge box office for a film of it's type (religion), and no studio was in a rush to finance it because of the huge unproven risk-so it was a low budget gamble that paid off.

A (then) niche film (scifi), one of few largely successful scifi films of it's type (scifi), and no studio was in a rush to finance it because of the genre's history-so it was a low budget gamble.

But according to your very own criteria, films that do not have a successful genre history or a well-known name or property behind it could NEVER be successful. I mean, wasn't that the entire core of your argument why Halo cannot score at the box office? Truly the term "self-contradiction" is meaningless to you eh?

Waitwait. We have TWO failing, unproven niches here that no one wanted to touch, and then AFTER a low budget one make it big, studios consider it possibly money. So, video games as a failing unproven niche that no one wants to touch.....and no one understands why no studio wants to give it BIG money when SMALL money hasn't paid off yet? Kinda like comics before XMen came along? Baby steps. You don't JUMP into the deep end of the pool with a niche.

Yeah, tell that to Fox and Universal who very much committed to making that big leap and bowed out only because of Microsoft's steep financial demands. I mean, can you even frickin' read my posts?

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.

Find me a soccer mom who DOESN'T love that movie. I'm at a loss, beyond that.

That means by your own admission, even you don't have a clear cut idea about what does or does not make a film a box office success. So now for the benefit of all of us and yourself, please shut the **** up about why Halo cannot bit a hit blockbuster.

People love ****? And Patrick Swayze? "fun and entertaining".

Another example that you don't know what the **** you're talking about. One can predict what kind of films might work at the BO, yet no one say with complete certainty a film's box office turnover like you are now in the case of Halo. Keep talking chum, so that everyone is convinced what kind of farce you're putting up here by being a clueless loser pretending to be a professional know-it-all.

I wish I knew. Hype machine. Sold soul?

Ah, what a sorry figure you're cutting there. You tried responding to all of the films I brought up yet your fumbling, useless replies indicate it would have been better if you had just conceded the fact that you CAN'T explain the reasons for the high grosses of the films mentioned thus far, thereby highlighting your incompetence in making any kind of informed or valid judgement on whether or not a Halo movie can be successful.

Constantly harking on Independance Day and Stargate probably didn't help. Odd that they ignored Godzilla, as that was clearly a HUGE movie that everyone loved.

OK, another criteria contributed by your very own MrHateYourself -

5. Involvement of a well-known artist.

Also a ridiculously low budget flick. Not a huge risk. Spielberg influence. You claim he wasn't popular, but Spielberg's never had a post Jaws period where he couldn't weild influence. And a damn quality flick to boot. A first of it's sort, I'd almost say.

Please, post-Jaws Spielberg's involvement couldn't get his own films like Empire of the Sun and 1941 to strike gold at the box office. It's utterly hilarious watching you struggle to attribute such shallow arguments to a film's success. Carry on, chuck! up:

Anyways, let's round up the quintessential criteria for a film's success as foretold by our very own MrHateYourself:

1. Feel good action.
2. Fun and entertaining.
3. Good Marketing campaign
4. A marvelous display of special effects
5. Involvement of a well-known artist.

After all, this is how he justifies a lot of those unknown, obscure properties went on to make hundreds of millions of bucks. But may I ask, which one of those criteria, will a Halo film WOULDN'T have provided it is being made the way it is intended to be?

It sure as bad place will have great action, will be fun and entertaining with dazzling CGI done by the premiere effects house in the biz with Peter Jackson attached to boot, plus Halo is already a recognized property so there is yet ANOTHER plus. And please don't forget, those criteria highlight what YOU say a film needs to be successful at the box office. Pray tell, how does Halo NOT have any of those?

You've failed again. That's not MY arguement. It IS part of my arguement on the case of ADAPTATIONS.

There's a little thing called "making sense" that would come in pretty handy in discussions like this. Ever heard of it, sonny-jim?

Oh, was that my point? No, it wasn't. But the figures for the map pack give a nice idea of how many Halo purchasers are big enough Halo fans to shell out a LITTLE more for a little more Halo. If the map pack sold anywhere near the core game itself's numbers, that's a pretty ravaging fanbase. If it only sells a small amount, that kinda shows that Halo isn't regarded as "OMG BEST THING EVAR GOTTA HAVE IT ALLLLLLL!"

First of all, the map pack would only interest those who are big into multiplayer. There, that's the first thing that limits it's demographic.

Secondly, a lot of the maps in the map pack had already been made available over Xbox Live as downloads and in OXM demo discs.

Third, the map pack INSTALLS onto your Xbox hard drive, that way one guy buys the map pack and 10 guys install them onto their hard drives. You didn't need to have the map pack disc at all times to play the extra maps like you do in the case of the original game thereby even further minimizing any incentive to own the map pack in the first place. With so many limiting factors, only a fool like yourself would use that as an argument to say "Halo doesn't sell".

And it's always entirely possible to outsell. Unlikely, but plenty possible. Grandma doesn't know what she's buying, and as a personal example:a friend who went to an employer XMas party where door prizes were given out, several of them being an XBox with the Map Pack.....but no Halo 1 or 2. There's several sales without the original attached. An ex's father was constantly buying PC game expansions without the original because he didn't know.

God, don't tell me you're actually suggesting THAT as an argument to say how the Map Pack could've outsold the original.

To begin with, there is only a very small percentage of the populace that is even susceptible to such blunders, provided they don't have anyone there to tell them otherwise, like other gamers or store clerks. Secondly, any such purchases that are made in error or lack of knowledge are almost always immediately returned or exchanged. "Oh I'm sorry my son doesn't have this game so I can't use this map pack, can I have my money back or exchange it for something else" or instead, result in even more sales of the original game thanks to those who want the map pack but don't own the original.

I mean, how the **** can you attribute wrong purchases as a possible factor in the map pack outselling the original game, ESPECIALLY in light of so many drawbacks? And you call yourself as someone who actually has an education in business to include such a ludicrous reason as a plausible sales factor? Who you trying to fool, bluffy?

Yep, Hollywood is desperate, hence the years of apathy and shopping about, and the mere handful of studios who expressed interest. OH, an INTERVIEW! Why, surely the guy who's desperately trying to get a deal made wouldn't say something as a bluff! No, he'd be dead honest and tell who's said what and express disappointment if applicable. He'd have no reason to keep up competetive appearances. The entertainment industry has a long history of honesty!

Jesus, why even try and talk about something you know jack **** about? Studios wanted the rights. Only Bungie wouldn't sell them. Initially Bungie said they'd only sell rights if Ridley Scott agreed to direct:http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/news.html?sid=6113693

During the discussion, the subject of the Halo movie came up. According to the "WB informant," Warner Bros. approached Bungie at this year's E3 about acquiring the Halo film rights. Their response? "Unless you got the writer and director of the original Alien, everyone can go fish."



http://xbox.ign.com/articles/567/567699p1.html

Hollywood Courts Halo

Bungie, of course, has been offered the chances to make a movie before, and being the smart, thrifty developer it is, its team has said no to everybody. However, Studio Manager Pete Parsons recently said that if there was to be a movie made, it would have to be the right people, story, and timing. Bungie has also been quoted as saying that they're big fans of Ridley Scott and they would love having him behind such a film.



Yeah, I mean look I've been posting news links left and right from every possible credible news sources and quotes one can come up with from Gamespot and IGN to Variety about how Hollywood studios were lusting after the Halo license yet here you are like some senseless guitar brushing all that away with your mindless babble about how barely anyone is interested in Halo and whatnot.

Please, BRING ME A ****ING SOURCE that states Hollywood is not interested in Halo when countless news headlines by trade publications state otherwise. If you can't, then I must reiterate that you best shut the **** up already.

 

[Tetragrammaton]

Not really. I used to post worthwhile stuff, but this place is just so boring and uninteresting now that I pretty much just phone it in. Just a bunch of spam and smileys

 

[Fenrir]

But it still doesn't explain Microsoft's desires to stay far away from any risk and indulge in pure profit. Fine, perfectly logical that Microsoft doesn't want to produce it, they have no movie experience. They can still pay for the flick. The George Lucas Deal. Lucas pays for his flicks out of his own pocket and owns all the rights, Fox distributes them and takes a much lower percentage than they normally would-but it's a pretty safe bet, a huge property and marketing/distribution for an A lister is about as expensive as an average Hollywood flick. Safe bet, safe money. Why doesn't Microsoft just PAY for the thing, so that they can keep creative control AND get a larger percentage? Unless, of course, there's something that suggests they might lose money.....probably not that more money has been SPENT on video game movies than MADE, surely not. That marketing it to Joe Public would be a pain and difficult, surely not.

Jesus, how can they PAY for it when they have no ****ing idea about financing a film to begin with? Lucas is another story because he actually IS a lifelong professional filmmaker who knows the ins and outs of the industry. Microsoft don't. I mean, it's blatantly clear that you don't know **** about running a business when you claim all it takes to get the job done is simply throwing away money. As financer, how will Microsoft manage the budget that is put into the production and cut unnecessary costs? How will they negotiate with artists and other third parties that they will have to pay? How are they going to market the film BEFORE a studio picks up the distribution rights? How are they going to explain this to their shareholders who will be at their throats for investing a hundred million dollars in something while not having a single clue as to what they are doing?

I mean, damn I've been saying this all along since the last three posts, yet you keep repeating the same old mindless garbage over and over. Say I don't know the first thing about retail or real estate business, except that I know it's profitable. Smart business principles state you should do a thorough research and have a good idea about your role as financer before investing, yet you with your asinine logic would advise clueless corporations with money to step in the ring with their money anyway. Please don't give me this crap about you being some kind of BBA Marketing graduate considering the fact that you don't know the first thing what you're talking about.

Splitting up the risk, eh? Not confident enough to take it on their own? Must be a reason to suggest carving up the losses. Nah, just paranoia. They're sharing the risk because they're such nice guys, and they know that the other company would love to share the profit too. Hollywood isn't greedy!

For a studio, when according to the agreement they'll have no creative control over the project along with the fact that they'll have to pay millions of dollars in royalty to the property license owner is reason enough to be wary. Again, read the reports by Variety and Gamespot that I posted before blabberring any more of your nonsense.

In the case of scifi movies, they're typically NOT about bigass action war.

A lot of the big-budget sci-fi blockbusters are. Independence Day, MIB, War of the Worlds, Star Wars...

That's part of it, but look at Star Wars or modern setting scifi flicks-the bigger action always takes a back seat to the society, the stars, things that people RELATE to.

Please bring me some "numbers" or "source" that people went to see Star Wars because it was something they can relate to instead of the simple fact that the films were fantastic, escapist pieces of entertainment. The general audience isn't smart enough to have a clue as to what they can or cannot relate to, otherwise archetypical pieces of trash like the Star Wars prequels and Independence Day would not have made big bucks at the box office and films that one can actually RELATE to, like The Shawshank Redemption wouldn't have tanked during their run in theatres.

Where is that in Halo? The main character of the series doesn't even have a story, much less a name or face. At least Soccer Mom and Joe Street know that Mario eats mushrooms and rescues the princess. They know that Batman is Bruce Wayne and battles The Joker, that Superman is Clark Kent and is vulnerable to Kryptonite, that Spiderman does whatever a spider can. Solid Snake, Cloud, Master Chief? Not a clue, despite the impressive sales for their mediums. They won't know who they are, what a Halo is, or why it matters-what do they have to relate to?

What are you, blind? Didn't you read this link when I posted it last time?!
John was born in 2511 and spent the first part of his childhood at Elysium City, on the human colony planet Eridanus 2 where he lived with his family. John was large for his age at the time, approximately a foot above his school peers, a sign of a "perfect genetic match" for a project dubbed "SPARTAN-II". He is described (at the age of six) as a typical boy, having brown hair, freckles and a gap in between his two front teeth.

The novels describe Master Chief out of armor as a tall, ghostly pale man (because of an aversion to sunlight due to being in the armor) with short military-style hair and a blank yet sorrowful expression.


And that is just his description with a lot more about the history of the Master Chief in that wikipedia link. The Halo videogames are only a part of a much bigger fictional universe that now spans novels and comic books as well. Filmmakers have a lot of material to draw from.

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, "guitar"?

Uh, did you just post my own words verbatim without even replying to them?

"Uh, guys, look, this REALLY isn't looking as good as we'd hoped, we'd kinda like a larger safety net. These things don't do well, and Halo is a tough cookie. Send a bit more of the money this way since we're the ones who'll have to bail out if it fails, and we do all the work?" Easy enough for history to cause a financial disagreement. So they want more money, that's industry nature regardless, but again....if it's sure to be money bags all around, why would it matter that much if it's a little more?

Again for the upteenth time, please point out a source that explicitly states that Fox and Universal dropped out because they thought the project wasn't profitable unlike what Variety reports about financial agreements being the cause of derailing the project. And like the report I posted says, Hollywood studios don't take kindly to being pushed around by non-industry players and the mere fact that they even conceded to the demands in the first place shows how badly they wanted the property.

"good" can't be measured. "Legs" are based on marketability and history of stars/genre/material. Star Wars got it's budget based on scifi history and Lucas' history and ONE executive believing in the project. XMen got it's budget based on other comic films, the series history, not because someone thought it was a "good" or "bad" script. If QUALITY were what Hollywood were based on, there'd be a lot less movies produced.

Quality is something that can be measured AFTER viewing the final product, whereas budget is decided BEFORE the film even enters production. How in heaven's name can anyone equate the two in this case is beyond me. Perhaps it's another one of MrHateYourself gimmicks.

Yet somehow, asserting that it DOES have legs (especially in front of evidence otherwise) without a single frame of film is not moronic? And it wouldn't have a single frame BEFORE it had legs, because shooting comes AFTER budget legs, but that's just being picky.

To start with, let's show everyone how badly you failed basic English reading classes -

It was YOU who brought up the "legs" argument by stating "Halo does not have Hollywood legs", so you kind of shot yourself in the ash there, sparks.

Next, you state that there is "evidence" that states Halo WILL NOT have "legs" thanks to your very own words - "Yet somehow, asserting that it DOES have legs (especially in front of evidence otherwise)". Pray tell, WHAT and WHERE is this "evidence"?

Look at how many lazy films make it. The (modern) Omen being the most recent example I've had to suffer through. But again, reading comprehension.

Look at how many lazy films DON'T make it. I won't even bother listing an example since they are way too many for anyone not to grasp that simple fact.

That was SARCASM! You'll learn about such complicated writing styles in high school. Or maybe college.

I know you were sarcastic, chump. I was replying to the point you were making with that sarcastic tone of yours. Or are you meaning to tell me you are too much of an ignorant jackass to use sarcasm without having something to say along with it?

And what would we do without you other Hollywood moguls to debate me? Ahyes, you're nobodies. Your "truth" validation is.....?

And YOU are not a nobody? Please post tangible, VERIFIABLE proof of your Hollwyood expertise or put that bullsit back in your vodka and sip it up quietly.

Ohno, You've Got Mail didn't set box office records! But it DID make profit.

But it didn't make hundreds of millions of dollars like Forrest Gump did, since according to you, it was Hanks who brought all that money in.

Ooops! Apollo 13, it wouldn't have mattered WHO was in that.

Wait, aren't you the guitar that keeps saying that Tom Hanks is big enough a superstar to not only save a film from being a flop, but actually turn a ****load of profit?

That Thing You Do, eh-it happens. Can't always be on top. Ahnold's career didn't nose dive after Last Action Hero.

Excuses, excuses.

Video gamers only talk video games with other gamers. A successful book gets coverage, discussion, and word of mouth along a MUCH wider audience.

These are some of the books that have stayed on the New York Times' fictional bestseller list for more than 6 weeks now:

THE MEMORY KEEPER'S DAUGHTER, by Kim Edwards.

MOTOR MOUTH, by Janet Evanovich

PREDATOR, by Patricia Cornwell

MORRIGAN'S CROSS, by Nora Roberts

FOR ONE MORE DAY, by Mitch Albom

THE THIRTEENTH TALE, by Diane Setterfield

And there are many, many more. What can you tell me about these books? What have you heard about them? Do you know the authors? Or the names of the characters? Their motives? Storyline? Heck, if what you say is true about successful books getting coverage, discussion and word of mouth amongst a wider audience, then everyone in the country must recognize those names more than Halo, right? That must mean you do as well. So please, enlighten us.

Oh and how do you explain - The Bonfire of the Vanities, bestselling fictional debut novel of the decade, adapted into a motion picture by Brian de Palma (yes, the maker of such praised films like Scarface and Dog Day Afternoon) with Tom Hanks AND Bruce Willis, tanking so bad it didn't even make a third of it's budget at the BO? And let's not forget the fact that The Bonfire of the Vanities is infinitely more well-known as a novel and sold more copies than Forrest Gump.

Or how about another example - a motion picture adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, the all-time classic Jane Austen novel that is taught even today in literature classes around the world, failing to make back it's budget?

Ever heard of "Jarhead: A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles" by Anthony Swofford, another well known constant best-seller adapted by the one and only "ACADEMY AWARD WINNING Director of AMERICAN BEAUTY" Sam Mendes? Yeah, that one too failed to make back it's 70 million budget in it's run in theatres.

I've overheard plenty of discussions on The Da Vinci Code among people unfamiliar with it, never heard gamers or nongamers discussing an unfamiliar game; nor is anyone going to say "Hey, my buddy Jim played that Halo game and liked it-it must be pretty interesting! I'll go see it!"

I suppose that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that The DaVinci Code is the 9th best-selling book of all time with more than 60 million copies sold.

Otherwise, no one except a bare few would've given a damn about it in the general audience like they did for Pride and Prejudice and The Bonfire of the Vanities and Jarhead.

"Video game" being a dirty word has a LOT to do with it. You can instantly write off potential audience members the moment those words hit. Again, go speak to Joe Street or Soccer Mom-they don't care about a video game.

"Comic book" was once a "dirty word" as well. And Joe Street and Soccer Mom don't know **** about books and novels either, so factoring in their familiarity with the source material is a pointless exercise.

Because again, tentpoles are ALWAYS successful.

Even if they fail, they still make more money than some foreign flick with limited release, which was EXACTLY my point. Oldboy never had a chance in bad place to make big numbers, whereas a big budget Halo movie actually might.

I guess I'll add a "READ BEFORE REPLYING" disclaimer after every single paragraph because you can't even follow such an obvious and basic etiquette.

Ahyes, the average person is going to say "That video gamer liked his video game movie! Even though I've never liked them but they're popular among gamers, I shall now go see it based on a gamer's advice!" I have tomorrow off, it's becoming VERY tempting to hit the street with a camera and start polling up these things. Of course, I'm sure that random polling of average nongaming Americans won't count, because VIDEO GAMES ARE POPULAR AMONG GAMERS!

People used to say the same thing about comic books once and now look what has happened. All we need is a well-done comic book movie that is faithful to the source material to strike gold at the box office and it won't be long before studios start begging publishers for big licenses.

As for good video game movies.....I still haven't seen Silent Hill, but I've heard a surprising number of positive things. Of course, those positive things have all come from gamers, so.....

People who say Silent Hill was a good movie don't know what a good movie is. And many of the negative remarks towards Silent Hill come from gamers themselves, including many on this board. So if you would be so kind as to stop with these guitared stereotypical blanket statements we could bring some sense back into the discussion.

Nice, so we have a similar education. Marketing, here. Plus ACTUALentrepreneural experience-have you run a business yet, even if it's a corporate job? Do you have any work experience in entertainment? My answers to these things are yes.

Please, the level of ignorance and stupidity present in your arguments readily gives away that you have the insight and education of a random 13 year old mashing out nonsense on his keyboard.

You're also asking for a lot of things that vary on taste. "awesome"
isn't exactly measurable. Nor is "intriguiging". I'll point to an
example of another one I watched recently:Hitchhiker's Guide. Not
unknown but not stellar cast, effects driven, certainly unique, FAR
more popular than Halo will ever be, big marketing campaign.......and
it flopped with the sound similar to that of a sperm whale falling
from space.

Hitchhiker's was a film that had a production budget of 50 million, whereas Halo's was around 135 million. Haven't seen the film, but from the looks of the trailer, it didn't look to have anything that would attract a summer audience looking for a sci-fi - no action, no dazzling special effects. The critical panning it recieved in reviews didn't help catch my interest either. And I barely heard of the film and that too can be attributed to the Hype. "Big marketing" campaign? Yeah, as big as a film with a 50 million budget can afford i.e, not much.

Find where I said it can only and absolutey WILL sink. I'm in the camp
that it's a tough battle.

Yet your very own posts show that you don't have a ****ing clue as to WHY exactly many obscure films made a ****load of money. How exactly are you qualified to say that a Halo flick will be a tough battle again?

First, Star Wars was the low budget gamble that blew open the big
gates. The low budget mega success that video games haven't had.

What about the BIG-BUDGET successes, like MIB, War of the Worlds and Independence Day? Sad it is that you measure your chances of success by looking at failures.

Second, yeah, so some scifi flicks are on that list, but there's more
that have tanked than soared.

The same could be said of each and every single genre.

 

[Fenrir]

And some things simply CAN'T be pushed
on a public-Star Trek is an international hit, Doctor Who has decades
of being a hit EVERYWHERE BUT AMERICA and has never been able to make
a smash.

And yet I listed a good number of films that had ABSOLUTELY ZERO popularity prior to their release but still went on to break box office records.

That starred the hottest actress of the moment...

Please, just...stop. Your absurdity is getting way beyond control now. People saw Tomb Raider because of Jolie? I wonder why couldn't she save a couple of her OTHER films from sinking, like Sky Captain, Taking Lives and Alexander? Heck, she couldn't even help make back the budget of Original Sin ever after "baring it all" for the audience.

and most people had no
clue was based on a video game.

Yeah, when every single preview on television and in print, not to mention the OFFICIAL SYNOPSIS of the goddamned film blatantly stated "based on the hit videogame series". I know you're too much of a dumbuss figure that out MrHateYourself, but everyone else isn't.

Oddly, the second one, once the video
game secret is out of the bag, didn't do so well.

You don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that it was progressive worse than the barely watchable original? Nah, logic is homeless bum in the domain of MrHateYourself.

Forbidden Planet, 2001, there were scifi hits before Star Wars-not
many. Superman, Batman, there were comic hits before XMen-not many.
Superhero flicks that weren't ICONS of POP CULTURE failed prior to
XMen, and Halo/Master Chief, I'm sorry to remind you, is NOT pop
culture icon. Gamers know him, and that's the extent of it. To the
rest of the world, Master Chief is a generic scifi guy.

Since videogames, especially Halo is such an obscure property, Time magazine was surely out of their ****ing minds to list the creators of Halo as the 100 most influential figures of the past year. Yup, that's what you get when you're THAT unpopular.

Minority, modern setting and not about the technology as much as the
humans involved. The suffering of the psychics. Tom Cruise's
innocence. The "grand idea" took a back seat, became scenery.
Star
Wars? It had a world that was fleshed out and fantastic, characters
that could be plunked into Vietnam or the future and still have the
same relatable ideals. What is Master Chief's story, motivation,
character? He has none. Why should anyone care about a generic future
Earth? Matrix is VERY modern setting for the most part, and is again
not so much about humans vs machine as it is about one's self and role
in the world. About questioning life and the world around you. About
decision making. The computers are scenery, part of a metaphor-but the
metaphor isn't about machines. The first two Terminators were very
much character pieces, especially the second one, which featured new
technology on a level only comparable to the first Star Wars.

Again, I cannot but feel pity and sympathy for you if you think the general audience watch effects driven sci-fi action blockbusters to relate to their characters, revel in the social commentary or understanding the metaphors and symbolism in the film. If that were the case, then Blade Runner, which is arguably the greatest sci-fi film ever made as well as thematically the richest, deepst and most complex of it's genre, wouldn't have had such a disappointing run, especially when it was up against E.T which was a shallow generic wannabe in comparison but still made big, big bucks.

Suffered through the games, thanks; I'll pass on the novels-we're not
adapting a book here.

They are still an integral part of the game's universe. But hey, if you want to keep your head buried in the sand and act like some incorrigible, ignorant buffoon, fine by me.

If the world can't be built in the game, it's
obviously of no importance to the writers.

The game developers build things that are important for the GAME, filmmakers build that which is important for the film. But I'm not surprised to see you failing to make such a simple, obvious distinction.

Interesting that they couldn't be bothered to put anything of that IN
THE GAME.

That's because Bungie have themselves said that they didn't show the Chief's face nor give him an extensive backstory in the game because they didn't want to shatter the illusion that the PLAYER is the Master Chief and they have said so repeatedly. Again, typical MrHateYourself babbling trash and claiming to know things he has no idea about.

[QUOTE[Read your own link-very little of the information on Chief
himself comes from the game, but from supplementals. My, how
"important" character is to the developers! And again, adapting a
game, not some fanfiction with a profiteering logo on it. Hardcore
fans read the books, not casual fans.[/quote]

That's gotta be THE stupidest excuse I've read. Just because the game doesn't elaborate on the specifics regarding characters means what the supplementals say should be discarded? Filmmakers should absolutely NOT look at other sources besides the game for more information on the Halo universe? Jeez, what a tool.

Here, the Alex Garland Halo script review at Latino Review:

http://www.latinoreview.com/scriptreviews/halo/review.html

Lookitthat! The very opening sequence in the script is not from the game but actually taken from the "Fall of Reach" novel. And subsequent re-writes have also been reported to have incorporated a lot of things from the novels.

Once again, MrHatesHimself makes a eye-popping display of his utterly pathetic cluelessness.

AND THE CROWD GOES WILD!!!

The biggest one : people don't care about video games, and that no one
(aside from the fans) knows who Chief is or what a Halo is. It looks
painfully generic, especially if Weta dirtied themselves with literal
translations of designs from the game. We might as well be writing a
book on the history of scifi flicks-the landscape is littered with
them. It happens quite regularly.

Yup, "generic" enough for the fact that Peter Jackson himself had nothing but emphatic praise on the pre-production work that had been done on the Halo film. And unless you're one of the most talented and influential figures in the industry whose films have grossed more than a billion dollars worldwide, you are in no position to question the man's words.

Being Jewish, I am thusly allowed to make Jew jokes and
references:mundane play it safe money conscious Jews DO run the
business world and Hollywood. We wouldn't be rich if we were
willynilly with money!

Oh God, you have reached a new intellectual low. Replying with stereotypical, racist jokes now? Desperation sure has a wierd way of manifesting itself, doesn't it?

Oh, well, thanks for that nugget, I'd never heard that tired one. It
doesn't negate the truth in mine, though. Silence and action BOTH
speak louder than words. And silence over words AND actions shows more
truth than either would alone.

Yes, but like I said already, silence can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. And what does the studios' silence on this indicate? Guilt? Admission? Shock? Disbelief? Restraint? Concealment? And why am I not surprised to see you failing to quote that part of my post in full?

Which, oddly, is exactly what I've been saying. The video game movie
industry has yet to pass baby steps. And the ground breakers have
always been TINY movies, not a $200 mil monster.

What videogame movies need now is just a trend-breaker, irrespective of whether or not it is a big budget blockbuster. It just so happens that a Halo film cannot be made the way it is intended to unless it is a 100 million dollar production.

And for God's sake have the audacity and courage or if not, AT LEAST the basic self-esteem to reply to my posts in FULL instead of cherry-picking my words and taking them out of context like some spineless coward. And there are a lot of points from my last big post that went unanswered. In fact, you've pretty much ignored the entire second half of this post of mine. So better get cracking on that too before you bother me with anymore of your brainfarts.

 

[Tetragrammaton]

Fenrir is phaser. Or he's a past version of me.

 

[Fenrir]

Oh and since it will be another three days of sweat, toil and hard labor for MrHateYourself until the poor soul finally finishes his struggle to draft a (still incomplete and incompetent) response, move along folks. Nothing to see here, at least for a couple more days.

 

[Horrorfan]

Jesus, watching mr hateyourself getting murdered by EVERYONE is starting to make me feel sorry for him



Oh wait, it's not!



I love how the guy drops in things that are supposed to make us wonder at how great he is and how amazing is life is. He's so buff (overdeveloped physique comment), rich (he is in the biz, you know, and ''has options'' ) and mingles with directors that we just cant compare. Subtle

 

[Fenrir]

Fenrir is phaser. Or he's a past version of me.

Yeah, looking back at some of your hilarious arguments with Danalys, I would've rather had YOU deal with the sorry sud that is MrHateYourself. At least it would've been a lot more funny. up:

 

[Horrorfan]

Yeah, looking back at some of your hilarious arguments with Danalys, I would've rather had YOU deal with the sorry sud that is MrHateYourself. At least it would've been a lot more funny. up:

I think it's been funny...especially how he has lots of excuses for why all the videogame adaptations that have been pretty sucessful (RE series, first Tomb Raider, Mortal Kombat) were all sucessful for reasons other than that they were based on videogames, and yet Peter Jackson's involvement won't have as much impact on a movie's sucess as Milla Jovovich.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

Wahahahah, yeah, it's a mad world.

 

[Mentok]

Everyone > MrHateYourself.

 

[Fenrir]

Everyone > MrHateYourself.

I wonder why does he still post in these forums. Already he's a laughing stock, he's not going to change any opinions especially with that maimed and ridiculous logic of his and he isn't going to win any fans or friends with that idiotic persistence.

 

[Master Chief]

Freakin' bad place dude, what the cork? Why do you break down posts like that? You're crazy dood, writing out essays for BS arguments, lol.

 

[블라스]

I think Fenrir might be some kind of badass android

 

[Horrorfan]

Wahahahah, yeah, it's a mad world.

I think it's kinda funny....I think it's kinda sad....the dreams in which mr hateyourself is dying are the best I've ever had....

 

[Fenrir]

I'm a detail-oriented, obsessively organized freak. I'm the kinda guy who makes weekly calendars and arranges clothes by type and color. I can't help it.

 

[블라스]

I'm a detail-oriented, obsessively organized freak. I can't help it.

I'm the same way with my room and my DVDs

 

[MrHateYourself]

After being wrong in so many different ways on so many different issues

You can't say I'm wrong that video games aren't popular. Pure and simple. And unfortunately there's no way to prove or even give any credibility to my most ultimate theory on the subject of a Halo adaptation:I'm rarely wrong about this sort of thing. I say a movie will bomb, it usually does.

He's so buff (overdeveloped physique comment)

Uh, wha?

rich

Find me a quote? Good jorb!

mingles with directors that we just cant compare

BNAT is an affair open to all. You've a similar chance. And/or move to a city with a flourishing film industry.

People saw Tomb Raider because of Jolie?

Yes. Yes they did. A schlock action flick with the starlet of the moment.

I wonder why couldn't she save a couple of her OTHER films from sinking

Swayze doesn't light up the box office anymore, either. Popular once doesn't mean popular always.

Yeah, when every single preview on television and in print, not to mention the OFFICIAL SYNOPSIS of the goddamned film blatantly stated "based on the hit videogame series".

Ohhhh, it was PRINTED, well, we know how much the American audience LOVES to read! I was beset by hundreds of morons who had no clue it was a video game-I can assure you that the majority of the audience didn't know it was a video game. It didn't stop when it hit DVD, either. Oh, the official synopsis, the PRIME source of information for Joe Moviegoer!

Time magazine was surely out of their ****ing minds to list the creators of Halo as the 100 most influential figures of the past year. Yup, that's what you get when you're THAT unpopular.

Not the first or last video game to appear. I think even Crash Bandicoot made the list at some point, and no one has a clue. EVERYONE knows who Mario is, and no one cares. Again, though, we know Americans love to read! They'll read EVERY single item in that article, certainly not skip around to what they're familiar with!

They are still an integral part of the game's universe

So integral that they are created by someone outside the game and then not included in said game. CLEARLY critical. It's a great excuse for poor writing, though, I'll have to remember that-oh no, it's not bad writing, it's in a supplemental material! Movie X didn't have plot holes, those were part of a completely different medium!

Peter Jackson himself had nothing but emphatic praise on the pre-production work that had been done on the Halo film.

And you can also find plenty of sources-such as AICN-where preproduction work has veered WILDY away from what is already set and known. Must not be happy with everything there, eh? What do you expect to happen, Jackson to come out and say "Well, when I first looked at Master Chief, I thought I was looking at an extra from the Starship Troopers TV series, and the aliens are pretty boring looking, there's some great paintings but I want the ******* who used acrylics fired." Of course they're going to publicly heap praise.

Jesus, how can they PAY for it when they have no ****ing idea about financing a film to begin with?

.....no clue how to finance? Financing is pretty common business, I'm sure Microsoft has a clue, but how about this simple idea:"Here's a check for the budget! Now do what we want!" It's pretty simple. Fox/Universal/whoever distributes (marketing costs would be best split), and that's the only loss they have to worry about-a relatively minor one. Microsoft has a perfectly reasonable reason then to make whatever profit demands they want, since they're assuming practically all of the risk. "How can they pay for it"....jeebus. You pay for something by PAYING FOR IT. Occam's goddamned Razor.

Again for the upteenth time, please point out a source that explicitly states that Fox and Universal dropped out because they thought the project wasn't profitable unlike what Variety reports about financial agreements being the cause of derailing the project.

Circular again. If the money were good enough, they'd run with it. Percentage disputes means someone's not happy about the money they stand to make, even if it's successful. Fox/Uni are completely right to battle Microsoft, Microsoft isn't taking any of the risk.

you state that there is "evidence" that states Halo WILL NOT have "legs". Pray tell, WHAT and WHERE is this "evidence"?

I don't think I've mentioned it before, actually. Public unfamiliarity with the character/franchise, video game movie failures, let's throw in dwindling box office reciepts as well. At least the first two of those should be unfamiliar arguements.

And YOU are not a nobody?

Quote me.

Wait, aren't you the guitar that keeps saying that Tom Hanks is big enough a superstar to not only save a film from being a flop, but actually turn a ****load of profit?

Again, quote me. Some things are built to flop (such as video game movies!)-you could put the biggest star in the world into a bizarre b&w German art film and it'd fail.

Excuses, excuses.

Oh, NOW bombs are "excuses", but not when we're talking about game adaptations.

if what you say is true about successful books getting coverage, discussion and word of mouth amongst a wider audience, then everyone in the country must recognize those names more than Halo, right?

You've listed several well known authors-I don't have to have read anything of theirs to know the name, same for most people. They also end up on talk shows, being written up in major newspapers, sitting on a shelf selling for long past their prime, not things you can say about video games. I can promise you that it'd hit more random person recognition than Halo would.

Oh and how do you explain - The Bonfire of the Vanities blah blah

Waitwait, a hit source material with an acclaimed director and hit cast that flopped? Were't we just trying to suggest that Halo can't fail for having a hit source, acclaimed director and one can assume good casting?

a motion picture adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, the all-time classic Jane Austen novel that is taught even today in literature classes around the world, failing to make back it's budget?

And Shakespear movies are in abundance every year as well. What was the last BIG one? Yeah.

"Comic book" was once a "dirty word" as well.

Was. Where's your XMen? Your safe suprise? Why don't non pop icons like Daredevil, Hellboy, Hulk, Punisher, Sin City create huge records? You haven't had an XMen, and the gaming industry's one Superman (Mario) failed.

Hitchhiker's was a film that had a production budget of 50 million, whereas Halo's was around 135 million.

Here we go again, with something more popular than Halo but in a niche and being given conservative budgeting. I wonder why that happens? Couldn't be because of bombs. Nah.

Sad it is that you measure your chances of success by looking at failures.

You're right, one should only ever look at the BRIGHT side of life! Hey, why don't we quit our jobs and blow all our money on lottery tickets. Instead of looking at how many people DON'T win the lottery, especially when they blow everything, let's look at the few people who DID win the lottery! It's happened before, so it's a safe bet!

perhaps that's why Robocop is nowhere to be seen in either the Top Worldwide or Domestic box office lists.

Ohno, it failed to set records! Profits be damned, it's a failure! Regular seller 20 years later be damned!

it "cleaned up" on the home video/DVD market?

Yes, it was a high seller and renter nationwide, both the VHS and the DVD.

but studios referring to it as a "tanker"? Source please.

Dig back to 1998 yourself. It was well publicised.

Guess in your bizarro world, #181 in the All-Time Highest Domestic Gross equals "rock bottom" eh?

Did you see the budget and (record setting) marketing costs? It eventually turned a profit, but it was still a turd for the studios.

Serenity...No wonder it didn't do well. You need to do a re-evaluation of your position before writing anymore crap.

I'm not the one suggesting that scifi action flicks that get marketing (you know, like Serenity, which ALSO had a built in audience) are surefire hits.

For an "incredibly successful" hack, none of his films show up in any top box-office grosses list, neither domestic nor worldwide. Maybe you ought to look up the words "incredibly" and "successful" in the dictionary, junior.

OHNO! None of his movies break records! You're right, I guess he's as much a failure as Rob Rod, because producing low budget flicks that turn a tidy profit and then perform very well on the home video/DVD market isn't success! (though if I remember, Mortal Kombat broke some previous record?) Yep. Not losing money, who does that guy think he is?! Why, even you pointed out that Spielberg has had some flicks that don't break records and even struggle....I guess he's not "incredibly successful" either.

But sci-fi effects pieces that are actually good films made by talented and respectable artists in the industry stand a mighty good chance for success, regardless of whether they are based on a known property or not.

Of course, again, GOOD is something you can't make solid, and ultimately guaruntees NOTHING at the box office. See your own use of Blade Runner, for instance.

yet can't realize the fact that the "end result" can be good only if the people in charge are ACTUALLY talented.

Even awful pop culture hits obviously require technical talent to some degree to get finished, but do you really suggest that it's related? Blair Witch, was that "talent"? You Got Served, is that really "talented" filmmaking? The end result does NOT require talent or "good".

If you're not being sarcastic

A reference that shamefully no one seems to have caught.

Jeff Goldblum, a STAR?! BWAHAHAHA! Aside from Jurassic Park, Lost World and Independence Day, good luck trying to find any film of his that was a box office success.

We can start with The Fly. Nine Months. Though it wasn't a hit and is more of a cult flick, I'm gong to toss n Buckaroo Banzai. Goldblum was a recognized name.

I mean, wasn't that the entire core of your argument why Halo cannot score at the box office?

Get a watch, you keep missing the train:video games fail. You'll also not find where I said CAN not. The odds are stacked against it. Even with hype, Jackson and WETA-King Kong made excellent money, but it's a well publicised dissappointment as well. Profitable, but not as much as people wanted/expected.

shut the **** up about why Halo cannot bit a hit blockbuster.

Again, find where I said CAN NOT. I say will not, and try as you like, you can't somehow make video game adaptation history suddenly look like a rose garden instead of a cemetary.

Please, post-Jaws Spielberg's involvement couldn't get his own films like Empire of the Sun and 1941 to strike gold at the box office. It's utterly hilarious watching you struggle to attribute such shallow arguments to a film's success.

Hmmm. You're right. Spielberg had no influence on getting those things produced. The people involved with Back To The Future? Totally lying in every interview and commentary. The producers only talk about his involvement as a favor, to make him look good. Pick up the DVDs and see for yourself how much a "one hit wonder" influenced.

Pray tell, how does Halo NOT have any of those?

It has those, but it also has one of the biggest marks AGAINST it:video game. Dirty word. We've covered this.

There's a little thing called "making sense" that would come in pretty handy in discussions like this. Ever heard of it, sonny-jim?

The slice of pie on the plate is NOT dinner, but IS part of dinner with the other items. Makes plenty of sense.

BRING ME A ****ING SOURCE that states Hollywood is not interested

Did you not see the general apathy? The Fox/Uni double deal that suggested neither of them wanted it (or thought highly enough of it) badly enough to do it themselves? That no one wants to be the sole risk taker and potential profiteer? Again, they're not sharing to be "nice".

The Halo movie is going to own no matter how big a PC fanboy Mr. Hate Yourself is.

He nailed me. I don't think it will bomb because video game movies do that, I think it will bomb because I'm some sheep who's been decieved into believing in "the console wars". If it were a Sony, Nintendo, or PC game, I'd be fully supportive of it.

THE STUDIO DIDNT CAN THE FILM, THE BACKED OUT OF THE FINANCING AGREEMENT.

Oh, right. Right. Stepping away from a legal ability doesn't can it. They'll keep working on something that they're not a part of anymore. Because they're bored, you know? "Hey Jackson, this is Fox. Just wantin to see if you have anything cool, I'm really interested in what you're cooking up for other potential investors. Nah, I don't mind sinking my money into a project I've dropped out of." Not able, not willing-both mean it's dead.

No, wait... I can ask him a damn question on HIS MANY BLOG EVENTS Oh noes... A regular peroson in contact with Peter Jackson... Oh Noes.

Yep. A surefire way to get a more telltale sign than, say, putting him on the spot in person where he has no lawyers looking over his shoulder and (unfortunately) won't be recorded. Yeah, you're right, the blog is the way to go-he stands a much higher chance of spilling something there.

 

[Fenrir]

Edit

 

[Fenrir]

Yes. Yes they did. A schlock action flick with the starlet of the moment. Swayze doesn't light up the box office anymore, either. Popular once doesn't mean popular always.

OK, suppose we even admit the argument that she was a starlet of the moment, in the same year that Tomb Raider was released (2001) did she appear in another film in which she "bared it all" in steamy sex scenes with Banderas - Original Sin. For a hot starlet of the moment, that film should've been to make more than Tomb Raider yet it didn't even make back it's budget.

Ohhhh, it was PRINTED, well, we know how much the American audience LOVES to read!

Wait, aren't you the jackass that said:

Video gamers only talk video games with other gamers. A successful book gets coverage, discussion, and word of mouth along a MUCH wider audience.

I was beset by hundreds of morons who had no clue it was a video game-I can assure you that the majority of the audience didn't know it was a video game.

You "assure me"? Why not bring me some tangible source of information instead of useless, apologetic statements like that?

It didn't stop when it hit DVD, either. Oh, the official synopsis, the PRIME source of information for Joe Moviegoer!

What about TV previews on programs like Access Hollywood, ET and reviews of the film BOTH in print AND on television ALL of which made explicitly clear that it was based on a videogame? I mean, you must know some really big dumbasses (no surprise, since your own character reflects the kind of company you keep). And I love how you again so CONVENIENTLY OVERLOOKED these words "when every single preview on television and in print" from my last post. Now I suppose next you will say "the American public doesn't watch TV" as a last resort to bail your ash out of this argument.

Not the first or last video game to appear. I think even Crash Bandicoot made the list at some point, and no one has a clue.

You "THINK" Crash made the list? You don't KNOW? Please provide a source that says he did, otherwise it's just even more gobs of your typical bull****.

EVERYONE knows who Mario is, and no one cares. Again, though, we know Americans love to read! They'll read EVERY single item in that article, certainly not skip around to what they're familiar with!

Must be YOUR ADD reading habits that incline to be so, but a lot of people who read TIME generally tend to be educated, well-informed people unlike yourself.

So integral that they are created by someone outside the game and then not included in said game.

What are you, dense? The Halo novels are OFFICIAL companions to the game. The beginning of the first game picks up RIGHT AFTER The Fall of Reach with the escape of the Master Chief in the Pillar of Autumn.

CLEARLY critical. It's a great excuse for poor writing, though, I'll have to remember that-oh no, it's not bad writing, it's in a supplemental material! Movie X didn't have plot holes, those were part of a completely different medium!

Like I said, surely you too much an imbecile to even grasp the fact that filmmakers are NOT RESTRICTED to only the videogame and Alex Garland's script is PROOF of that fact. The game is very vague on many aspects of the Halo universe yet the novels have made it very clear that it is actually very well-crafted. Your ridiculous notion "NO NO THEY CAN'T TAKE FROM THE NOVEL EVEN THOUGH IT IS OFFICIALLY ENDORSED BY BUNGIE AND THE AUTHORS ARE ACTUALLY CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUNGIE TEAM"

Here, Gamespot's Q&A with Eric Nylund, the author of two Halo novels - First Strike and The Fall of Reach that clearly shows he's definitely an "inside guy" with Bungie. Oh and let's not forget his comments about "much of the groundwork was already laid for me, but writers like me like to fill in the little gaps".

Foot, meet MrHateYourself.

And you can also find plenty of sources-such as AICN-where preproduction work has veered WILDY away from what is already set and known. Must not be happy with everything there, eh?

Put your money where your trap is and post links or sources. Otherwise, you're just another one of those morons who likes to make **** up to support his own points.

What do you expect to happen, Jackson to come out and say "Well, when I first looked at Master Chief, I thought I was looking at an extra from the Starship Troopers TV series, and the aliens are pretty boring looking, there's some great paintings but I want the ******* who used acrylics fired." Of course they're going to publicly heap praise.

Only Jackson is already a well-known, self-proclaimed Halo fanboy and even the interviewers said that his praise was sincere and very much unlike the regular publicity crap they hear everyday. If the guys in the biz who get paid to get people to talk say such things about Jackson's praise for Halo, then I'd rather believe them than some clueless jackass on the internet who, after more than 30,000 words of arguing, doesn't have the competence to do a basic google search and post links to prove his claims.

.....no clue how to finance? Financing is pretty common business, I'm sure Microsoft has a clue, but how about this simple idea:"Here's a check for the budget! Now do what we want!"

Yeah, only illiterate morons like you would even contemplate writing a cheque for hundreds of millions of dollars without knowing what they are doing. And you say you're a BBA Marketing graduate? Even I can smell your bull**** from here.

It's pretty simple. Fox/Universal/whoever distributes (marketing costs would be best split), and that's the only loss they have to worry about-a relatively minor one. Microsoft has a perfectly reasonable reason then to make whatever profit demands they want, since they're assuming practically all of the risk. "How can they pay for it"....jeebus. You pay for something by PAYING FOR IT. Occam's goddamned Razor.

But what if you DON'T have the first clue about the value of the thing you're paying for? By attempting such a blind-jump, Microsoft could easily end up investing more money in the project than a studio would in their place simply because they have no idea about the film industry and as such, being the blind man writing the cheques, are very susceptible to be overcharged and ripped off by various second and third parties involved with the project who are looking to maximize their own profits by taking advantage of MS's inexperience in Hollywood.

Circular again. If the money were good enough, they'd run with it. Percentage disputes means someone's not happy about the money they stand to make, even if it's successful. Fox/Uni are completely right to battle Microsoft, Microsoft isn't taking any of the risk.

No one WILLINGLY takes unnecessary risks that can be better handled by someone else. Your suggestion of MS self-financing the whole project is as insightful as an underage juvenile who doesn't know the first thing about running a business.

I don't think I've mentioned it before, actually. Public unfamiliarity with the character/franchise, video game movie failures, let's throw in dwindling box office reciepts as well. At least the first two of those should be unfamiliar arguements.

Rolleyes smileys don't equate sources. Please post verifiable links that contain said information that the public isn't familiar with the character/franchise (the Halo 2 sales phenomenon made news headlines all over in the following days so SOMEONE SOMEWHERE who doesn't live in a ****ing cave MUST HAVE at least HEARD of it), video game movie failures can be attributed to suckass adaptations instead of shortcomings of the licensed property itself. So if you would please post links and sources (that are as good or more reliable than VARIETY to boot) like I do to save what's left of that already humiliated face of yours, maybe we'd start getting somewhere.

Quote me.

Wo-Kay!

Nice, so we have a similar education. Marketing, here. Plus ACTUAL
entrepreneural experience-have you run a business yet, even if it's a
corporate job? Do you have any work experience in entertainment? My
answers to these things are yes.

So, in spite of knowing next to NOTHING about running a business, not only do you idiotically claim to be BBA Marketing graduate, you claim of having actually entrepreneaural experience and that too work experience in the industry? Yeah, you're totally rolling with the studio suits there, chump.

Again, quote me. Some things are built to flop (such as video game movies!)-you could put the biggest star in the world into a bizarre b&w German art film and it'd fail.

As you wish. Here's your justification of how Forrest Gump made so much money:

Tom Hanks, one of the biggest actors of our time, can draw an audience?! WOW! Did you know that most people don't know that Forrest Gump was a book, and that the movie is WAY off? Didn't matter-it had a star at his peak and recieved good word of mouth.

I can almost smell the smoke coming out of your end after you shot yourself in the ash like that.

Oh, NOW bombs are "excuses", but not when we're talking about game adaptations.

I meant it was amusing seeing you trying to justify the bombs of an actor's career right after beating your chest claiming that very actor was enough to propel a film's success into hundreds of millions of dollars. That's like watching accidentally slapping himself HARD while wildly flailing arms in proclaimation of "victory".

You've listed several well known authors-I don't have to have read anything of theirs to know the name, same for most people. They also end up on talk shows, being written up in major newspapers, sitting on a shelf selling for long past their prime, not things you can say about video games. I can promise you that it'd hit more random person recognition than Halo would.

Really? Can you please round up a list of books and their exact sales figures for me? Considering how handy the internet is these days when digging out info AND how "well-known" these people are, it really shouldn't be a problem.

Waitwait, a hit source material with an acclaimed director and hit cast that flopped? Were't we just trying to suggest that Halo can't fail for having a hit source, acclaimed director and one can assume good casting?

Way to go on a pointless tangent. Nevertheless, since were the one who was dismisisng Halo as "unpopular", in an attempt to turn my own argument against me, you're now calling it a "hit source material"? Wow, talking choking your own neck.

Oh and my point was in a direct reply to your very words about books being more "popular" than videogames, and it's not very healthy for your argument when crappy videogame adaptations like Tomb Raider and Mortal Kombat make more money than modern classics like Jarhead or Bonfire of the Vanities or even an all-time literary classics like Pride and Prejudice.

And Shakespear movies are in abundance every year as well. What was the last BIG one? Yeah.

Pride and Prejudice was NOT a big movie? Keira Knightley and a 28 million dollar budget (about right for a respectable arthouse Hollwyood film) is NOT big enough for you?

Was. Where's your XMen? Your safe suprise? Why don't non pop icons like Daredevil, Hellboy, Hulk, Punisher, Sin City create huge records?

Daredevil made 45 million dollars in it's opening weekend and Hulk made 62 million in it's opening weekend. Those are pretty huge numbers for "non pop" icons. Pity both of those films sucked so bad they couldn't maintain a good run even after such spectacular starts. Hellboy (66 million budget) and Punisher weren't tentpoles so obviously they weren't expected to get big numbers in the first place. Sin City? You're challenging me why a HARD R RATED FILM with a modest 40 million budget and gobs of blood, sex, gore, violence and nudity DID NOT make a hundred million bucks? I'm at a loss for words...

You haven't had an XMen, and the gaming industry's one Superman (Mario) failed.

In Hollywood, popularity of licensed properties don't mean **** if the films they are in aren't at least watchable and Mario is better suited as torture for interrogation.

Here we go again, with something more popular than Halo but in a niche and being given conservative budgeting. I wonder why that happens? Couldn't be because of bombs. Nah.

You don't suppose it had anything to do with the fact that sci-fi comedies aren't a very appealing genre to blow a big budget over? Nah, that makes too much sense. Unfitting for a senseless "maroon" like MrHateYourself.

 

[Fenrir]

You're right, one should only ever look at the BRIGHT side of life! Hey, why don't we quit our jobs and blow all our money on lottery tickets. Instead of looking at how many people DON'T win the lottery, especially when they blow everything, let's look at the few people who DID win the lottery! It's happened before, so it's a safe bet!

In business, one always tries to learn from the successes first instead of the failures. That's why your basic management, finance, marketing or human relations textbooks always list successes more than failures, be they Sun Microsystem's praised control system, Dell's cost-effective price-war tactics, Lexus' customer service excellence or Google's informal and open-ended internal management. Of course, you'd know that as a BBA Marketing graduate. But alas, your asinine arguments gave you away yet again.

Looking at failures indicates one's limited perspective in trying to avoid failure only with no clue as to how to reach the peak of success. Broken businesses are a cautionary tale for aspiring entrepreneurs and managers, sure, but the REAL lessons are always taught by the movers and shakers who've made their mark in the business world.

Ohno, it failed to set records! Profits be damned, it's a failure! Regular seller 20 years later be damned!

Please post relevant data that proves Robocop is a "regular" seller 20 years later. Or else, I'll only repeat the usual mantra - SHUT THE **** UP, CREEP...Robocop style!

Yes, it was a high seller and renter nationwide, both the VHS and the DVD.

Source? Link? Anything verifiable instead of your own meaningless babble? Please stop pulling "facts" out of your ash.

Dig back to 1998 yourself. It was well publicised.

Since you're the one making absurd claims about studios calling it a tanker, the burden of proof rests solely upon you.

Did you see the budget and (record setting) marketing costs? It eventually turned a profit, but it was still a turd for the studios.

Again, SOURCE?

I'm not the one suggesting that scifi action flicks that get marketing (you know, like Serenity, which ALSO had a built in audience) are surefire hits.

Maybe you should do a better reading of my posts. I've been saying since forever that NOTHING is a "surefire" hit. But hey, if you want to keep on misinterpreting and twisting my words to support your ridiculous arguments that only make you look like even more of a fool, be my guest.

OHNO! None of his movies break records! You're right, I guess he's as much a failure as Rob Rod, because producing low budget flicks that turn a tidy profit and then perform very well on the home video/DVD market isn't success! (though if I remember, Mortal Kombat broke some previous record?)

Mortal Kombat broke records? Alright, I REALLY need to see the source for THIS one now, because even Wikipedia doesn't say anything of the sort, which could very well be YET ANOTHER instance of MrHateYourself spewing feces of false information.

Yep. Not losing money, who does that guy think he is?! Why, even you pointed out that Spielberg has had some flicks that don't break records and even struggle....I guess he's not "incredibly successful" either.

Since when does someone who's cleared low-investment, low-risk project get labeled as "incredibly successful"? The very scale of his projects clearly show he's a small-time player and a talentless one at that. "Incredibly successful" would be someone like Spielberg, Scott, Zemeckis, Cameron, Verbenski etc.

Of course, again, GOOD is something you can't make solid, and ultimately guaruntees NOTHING at the box office. See your own use of Blade Runner, for instance.

Blade Runner was one of the few exceptions. Besides, the very nature of the film made it ill-suited for general audiences anyway.

Even awful pop culture hits obviously require technical talent to some degree to get finished, but do you really suggest that it's related? Blair Witch, was that "talent"? You Got Served, is that really "talented" filmmaking? The end result does NOT require talent or "good".

Again, inappropriate examples. Low-budget, low-investment, low-pay-off films can NOT be used as a logical template to discern the outome of bigger budgeted films. It's common sense. And you seem to be lacking a lot of it.

We can start with The Fly. Nine Months. Though it wasn't a hit and is more of a cult flick, I'm gong to toss n Buckaroo Banzai. Goldblum was a recognized name.

Recognized enough to get Independence Day 800 million bucks? Why couldn't a lot of other films in his career make even 1/10th of that? Some superstar.

Get a watch, you keep missing the train:video games fail.

Tomb Raider - 250 million. No matter how badly you try to attribute other factors to it, it was a videogame movie.

Oh and aren't you the guitar who was saying that Mortal Kombat, a film that EVERYONE and their grandma knew was a videogame, broke some kind of record? And now you're saying that video game movies fail?

How does it feel to consistently stab yourself with the dagger of self-contradiction?

You'll also not find where I said CAN not. The odds are stacked against it. Even with hype, Jackson and WETA-King Kong made excellent money, but it's a well publicised dissappointment as well. Profitable, but not as much as people wanted/expected.

SHOW ME where Kong was a "well-publicized" disappointment, especially with a worldwide gross of nearly 550 million. Since it was a recent film and like you say "well-publicized disappointment", sources and articles that state as such shouldn't be hard to find. Get crackin' chump.

Again, find where I said CAN NOT. I say will not, and try as you like, you can't somehow make video game adaptation history suddenly look like a rose garden instead of a cemetary.

Then what about Tomb Raider and your very own record-breaking candidate, Mortal Kombat?

Hmmm. You're right. Spielberg had no influence on getting those things produced. The people involved with Back To The Future? Totally lying in every interview and commentary. The producers only talk about his involvement as a favor, to make him look good. Pick up the DVDs and see for yourself how much a "one hit wonder" influenced.

Jesus, did you truly fail basic reading comprehension? I never said Spielberg had no influence in getting those films produced. Obviously he did. What I was ACTUALLY saying was that his involvement had little to do with the box office gross of Back to the Future. Spielberg being producer for The Goonies, Twilight Zone, Poltegeist and Gremlins did little to help those films at the box office that were released around the same period in Spielberg's career and the same holds true for Back to the Future as well.

It has those, but it also has one of the biggest marks AGAINST it:video game. Dirty word. We've covered this.

Yet ironically you linked that "dirty word" with "record-breaking" in the very same post. It truly must be poetic justice.

The slice of pie on the plate is NOT dinner, but IS part of dinner with the other items. Makes plenty of sense.

How can the pie be NOT dinner and part of the dinner at the same time? That's just guitared. To be a part of something means it is also collectively included in it as a whole. I mean, who are you trying to trick by making inane statements like "It is NOT my argument" (dismissal) and then subsequently saying "it IS part of my argument" (admission). Only in MrHateYourself's twisted comprehension are two completely polar opposites mean one and the same.

Did you not see the general apathy? The Fox/Uni double deal that suggested neither of them wanted it (or thought highly enough of it) badly enough to do it themselves? That no one wants to be the sole risk taker and potential profiteer? Again, they're not sharing to be "nice".

The risk was not the property itself, but the baggage of limited creative control and financial demands that came with it. Again, Variety discussed it in excellent detail yet you still got your cranium stuck in your anal cavity by repeating your own fabricated assumptions like a broken record. I mean, surely you must be one heck of an insider at Fox and Universal who is sharing with us a behind-the-scenes info that even a premiere industry trade publication like Variety couldn't get a hold of.

L O L

 

[Fenrir]

Oh and I believe it is best brought to everyone's attention that MrHatesHimself had barely responded to less than half the total number of aguments he was supposed to reply to. He's a gutless coward like that.

 

[Extromaniac]

I concur. It is pretty amusing watching MrHateYourself getting torn apart, though. His reasons for a Halo movie failure are downright idiotic at best.

 

[WhatsHisFace]

MrHateYourself is the forum idiot and you, Fenrir, are clearly a very smart person. Everyone here agrees with you with the exception of MrHateYourself himself, so don't worry about continuing this argument. You won it a LONG time ago.