Support NeoGAF

[Burger]

Microsoft Corp. plans to finance a movie based on its popular video game "Halo" after Universal Pictures and 20th Century Fox backed out of the project.


The two studios cut their ties to "Halo" because of costs associated with the movie, which had a preliminary budget of $145 million, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The studios also failed to persuade the filmmakers to renegotiate their contracts, the newspaper said.

"We are disappointed that Universal wanted to significantly renegotiate the financial points of the deal," Microsoft said in a statement Friday. "We are already in discussions with potential partners who recognize the value of the 'Halo' brand."

Fox and Universal also had been in a power struggle over the movie's control, the Times said. The studios refused to comment.

The movie -- a large production replete with complicated special effects -- is scheduled for a summer 2008 release.

United Press International.

http://www.andnetwork.com/index?service=direct/0/Home/recent.titleStory&sp=l54086

Yay!

 

[Ghost]

....:lol

 

[syllogism]

""We are already in discussions with potential partners who recognize the value of the 'Halo' brand."

ps. there's no way it will break even in box office (perhaps after dvd sales) with a budget like that, but then again that's probably not microsofts goal

 

[Scrow]

:O

i am shocked, simply shocked by this news.

 

[Pseudo judo]

This was a no brainer. If Mel Gibson can do it MS certainly can. Lol at the Hollywood studios backing out. If they did it thinking it would pressure MS into renogotiating they were idiots and if they did it because they couldn't see the profit potential past the risk potential, they were idiots. The Universal Halo theme park ride would've made huge bank.

 

[artist]

""We are already in discussions with potential partners who recognize the value of the 'Halo' brand."

"Microsoft to finance 'Halo' movie, brought to you by African News Dimension"

 

[Chris Remo]

This was a no brainer. If Mel Gibson can do it MS certainly can. Lol at the Hollywood studios backing out. If they did it thinking it would pressure MS into renogotiating they were idiots and if they did it because they couldn't see the profit potential past the risk potential, they were idiots. The Universal Halo theme park ride would've made huge bank.

They did it because they didn't think the return would be sufficiently greater than the investment, obviously. It's not that unreasonable of a prediction given the high cost of entry.

 

[Fallout-NL]

This was a no brainer. If Mel Gibson can do it MS certainly can. Lol at the Hollywood studios backing out. If they did it thinking it would pressure MS into renogotiating they were idiots and if they did it because they couldn't see the profit potential past the risk potential, they were idiots. The Universal Halo theme park ride would've made huge bank.

Meh, game to movie conversions have the tendency to suck. Probably cause they always want the movie to appeal to a larger demographic. Anyway, there is a possibility of it bombing big time. Alex Garland's involvement is hopeful however. (Movie to game conversions suck cause devs/publishers tend to rely on name recognition instead of a decent game, except Riddick of course.)

 

[Prine]

dont know who will distribute, maybe New Line??

Regardless, MS will do well with the merchandising nd ticket sales. Their loss

 

[ORANGUTAN]

Is this gonna be Rated R? It would be amazing if it was R

 

[Zaptruder]

As long as Chuck Norris is master chief, I don't see how this could go wrong.

 

[Defuser]

As long as Chuck Norris is master chief, I don't see how this could go wrong.

nuh uh, basically the movie will end within 15 mins with everybody getting roundhouse kick in the face without any use of weapons.

We are already in discussions with potential partners who recognize the value of the 'Halo' brand.

 

[thetrin]

nuh uh, basically the movie will end within 15 mins with everybody getting roundhouse kick in the face without any use of weapons.

DAY ONE

 

[Pudding Tame]

They did it because they didn't think the return would be sufficiently greater than the investment, obviously. It's not that unreasonable of a prediction given the high cost of entry.

Maybe, but they only tried to renegotiate pretty much just before they were supposed to pony up money for the movie rights and commit to the financing. It looks like it might have been a strong-arm tactic just to get a better deal, and right now it looks to have maybe back fired.

 

[artist]

As long as Chuck Norris is master chief, I don't see how this could go wrong.

F'ing Chuck Norris.

 

[Frenck]

Meh, game to movie conversions have the tendency to suck. Probably cause they always want the movie to appeal to a larger demographic. Anyway, there is a possibility of it bombing big time. Alex Garland's involvement is hopeful however. (Movie to game conversions suck cause devs/publishers tend to rely on name recognition instead of a decent game, except Riddick of course.)

They don't use the Garland script anymore. AFAIK it's still based on the same core story as the Garland script (Halo 1) but it changed quite a lot. The Garland script had way too much splatter for a big budget Summer blockbuster and it didn't fit the relatively tame Halo games that much.

 

[Pseudo judo]

They did it because they didn't think the return would be sufficiently greater than the investment, obviously. It's not that unreasonable of a prediction given the high cost of entry.

145 million by hollywood standards is high but compared to other films it's comes in about right. War of the Worlds, for example, cost 132 million to make and I think as an intellectual property it doesn't have nearly half the appeal and certainly the popularity of Halo. Add in tie ins like merchandising--where the real money is anyways--and dvd/hdvd sales and the studios are still stupid for passing, imo.

 

[Chris Remo]

Maybe, but they only tried to renegotiate pretty much just before they were supposed to pony up money for the movie rights and commit to the financing. It looks like it might have been a strong-arm tactic just to get a better deal, and right now it looks to have maybe back fired.

If renegotiation was that important to them to the point where they dropped it entirely, they clearly didn't feel it was a worthwhile endeavor under the current terms. Microsoft is still going to need a distributor even if they pony up the funding, so I doubt they were thrilled to see both companies go.

 

[Chris Remo]

145 million by hollywood standards is high but compared to other films it's comes in about right. War of the Worlds, for example, cost 132 million to make and I think as an intellectual property it doesn't have nearly half the appeal and certainly the popularity of Halo. Add in tie ins like merchandising--where the real money is anyways--and dvd/hdvd sales and the studios are still stupid for passing, imo.

What does intellectual property have to do with War of the Worlds? War of the Worlds was Spielberg and Tom Cruise. Those names are far bigger than Halo among the general public. Hell, I'm sure some people even saw it because it was scored by John Williams. Peter Jackson is a really big name these days but he's just serving as executive producer, and the director has no general public pull.

 

[Pseudo judo]

If renegotiation was that important to them to the point where they dropped it entirely, they clearly didn't feel it was a worthwhile endeavor under the current terms. Microsoft is still going to need a distributor even if they pony up the funding, so I doubt they were thrilled to see both companies go.

The studios didn't think The Passion of the Christ was a worth while endeavor either but after making 145 million in 7 days Mel made the studios look stupid. I'm not saying the scenario is exactly the same but that the studios tend to misjudge the popularity an spending power of individuals interested in a certain intellectual properties, in this case I think they've misjudged.

 

[Pudding Tame]

If renegotiation was that important to them to the point where they dropped it entirely, they clearly didn't feel it was a worthwhile endeavor under the current terms. Microsoft is still going to need a distributor even if they pony up the funding, so I doubt they were thrilled to see both companies go.

Maybe, but now that the topic is now distribution and not financing there might not be a reason to count out Fox or Universal yet.

 

[Pseudo judo]

What does intellectual property have to do with War of the Worlds? War of the Worlds was Spielberg and Tom Cruise. Those names are far bigger than Halo among the general public. Hell, I'm sure some people even saw it because it was scored by John Williams. Peter Jackson is a really big name these days but he's just serving as executive producer, and the director has no general public pull.

I thought this was a serious discussion? :lol

If the intellectual propertty was the Nut Cracker instead of War of the Worlds the names attached to it would have made little difference in the publics complete lack of interest in going to see it.

 

[Wired]

The studios didn't think The Passion of the Christ was a worth while endeavor either but after making 145 million in 7 days Mel made the studios look stupid. I'm not saying the scenario is exactly the same but that the studios tend to misjudge the popularity an spending power of individuals interested in a certain intellectual properties, in this case I think they've misjudged.

Well, I don't think the Chief have the same amount of rabid fans as Christ... but who knows?

 

[medrew]

Are we questioning the popularity and 'install base' of War of the Worlds (inclusive of the novel) to a ****ing video game, albeit one of the marquee franchises, in this thread?

 

[deadhorse32]

Sci-Fi is not IN
Video game movies are shit and thus should have limited budget
The first movie of a no-name director
Microsoft & Bungie probably anal about their beloved franchise


Basically, Hollywood likes video game movies when they are made by B-rated director (who STFU and bend) for the less money possible.

 

[deadhorse32]

The studios didn't think The Passion of the Christ was a worth while endeavor either but after making 145 million in 7 days Mel made the studios look stupid.

POTC was too controversial (anti-jew sentiment, violence, ....) that's why every studios passed on it.

 

[Louminater]

POTC was too controversial (anti-jew sentiment, violence, ....) that's why every studios passed on it.

Yeah it had nothing to do with the movie being in Aramaic, nahhhhh.

 

[Zaptruder]

Chuck Norris IS masta chief!

 

[evil ways]

""We are already in discussions with potential partners who recognize the value of the 'Halo' brand."

ps. there's no way it will break even in box office (perhaps after dvd sales) with a budget like that, but then again that's probably not microsofts goal

Yeah, it doesn't seem like they're aiming to make a big, profitable blockbuster film, but rather a $150 million Halo 3 commercial.

 

[Chris Remo]

I thought this was a serious discussion? :lol

If the intellectual propertty was the Nut Cracker instead of War of the Worlds the names attached to it would have made little difference in the publics complete lack of interest in going to see it.

So? What does that have to do with it? My point was that it makes no sense to compare Halo to War of the Worlds on the basis of the relative strength of those two intellectual properties, since the factors that drove War of the Worlds' box office performance was largely unrelated to its IP.

 

[Pseudo judo]

Are we questioning the popularity and 'install base' of War of the Worlds (inclusive of the novel) to a ****ing video game, albeit one of the marquee franchises, in this thread?

Yes.

War of the Worlds is a well known franchise but I wouldn't say it's a popular one. More people are familiar, world wide, with the War of the Worlds then Halo, especially the older generation, that much we can agree on but the purchasing power of those people--in other words, the likely hood of them spending $10 on a big budget Hollywood movie based solely on that property--isn't comparible to the Halo franchise. Just my opinion, I've no numbers and such to support it.

 

[Busty]

The simple fact of the matter is I don't see this film getting made at all. The only reason Universal and Fox even boarded this film was because Peter Jackson 'expressed' an interest in the project.

They wanted him to write/direct. He however was only interested in producing and getting some more work for his FX studio.

When the studios came to the realisation that PJ wasn't directing they weren't interested. Going back at the last minute to renegogiate a deal is the oldest trick in the book for getting out of a contract.

IF... IF (and that's a big 'if') Microsoft did finance the movie themselves they would have no trouble getting the film distributed by someone. Top of the list would be MGM who have basically become a distribution house for hire since being bought out, or New Line would take if for the US and get someone to sell it worldwide.

Frankly, I really don't see this film getting made. If Microsoft agreed to hand over (or share) the film and merchandising rights for HALO to a studio then the whole thing would start moving again pretty quickly.

Every year someone swaggers into Hollywood and tries to play hardball with the studios and every year that same someone gets bitchslapped. This year it's Microsoft.

In closing, as with all things cinematic, never say never. But I really don't think even Microsoft would be willing to take a $100 million + (at least, not including advertising and things like that) gamble on an unproven IP outside of video games with a 27 YEAR OLD DIRECTOR..... this movie was NEVER getting made by FOX and Universal as it stands.


That is all.

 

[Fallout-NL]

They don't use the Garland script anymore. AFAIK it's still based on the same core story as the Garland script (Halo 1) but it changed quite a lot. The Garland script had way too much splatter for a big budget Summer blockbuster and it didn't fit the relatively tame Halo games that much.

Well ****. So it ll probably be nothing like the Nylund books then. This movie will fail miserably. PG-13 crap.

 

[Chris Remo]

I don't know if MGM would do it given the situation with Sony and MGM.

 

[medrew]

Yes.

War of the Worlds is a well known franchise but I wouldn't say it's a popular one. More people are familiar, world wide, with the War of the Worlds then Halo, especially the older generation, that much we can agree on but the purchasing power of those people--in other words, the likely hood of them spending $10 on a big budget Hollywood movie based solely on that property--isn't comparible to the Halo franchise. Just my opinion, I've no numbers and such to support it.

Halo 2 sold a little under 8 million copies worldwide. Their 'purchasing power' (sic, misused term) would have to be such that they would be willing to spend $40 each on the movie*.
Now of course there are going to be people that will see it that don't own the game, but likewise there are those that own the game but won't see it. Just rough figures (with no real merit but illustrates the so-called purchasing power).
This is a lot of money for a production that due to the circumstances won't have a hugely marketable star in the mold of Tom Cruise. Plus it's a sci-fi movie based on a video game, which automatically narrows itself down to a certain demographic which often doesn't transend into mass appeal.

* 8x40 = 320. Let's say the cinemas take 40% of the box office and the distributor 15% and the director/cast are allocated points worth another 10%. That's 65% of the revenue gone. $144million left over which is around the budget. This is before factoring in advertising which could amass another $70-100million.

 

[.dmc]

So when they lose $100million on this film will Robbie Bach tell MS shareholders that this represents a longterm investment into the film industry and that the Microsoft Film Studio hope to turn a profit in 2010?

 

[Pseudo judo]

So? What does that have to do with it? My point was that it makes no sense to compare Halo to War of the Worlds on the basis of the relative strength of those two intellectual properties, since the factors that drove War of the Worlds' box office performance was largely unrelated to its IP.

That's where we disagree I guess. I'm of the opinion that the IP is the foundation of interest in these movies and the attachments like Spielberg and Tom Cruise add a certain level of legetimicy to the hope that, in the end, the IP will end up turning into a good movie.

Halo, imo, is in a different league in this regarde. Most Halo fans, to which there are obviously millions, will see the movie regardless of who's making it. Just to see how well they turned their beloved franchise into a movie or to see how much they've butchered it. Attachements like Peter Jackson just validate the hope that the movie will be good, as well as selling the idea that it may be good to people who have heard of Halo, are getting wrapped up in the hype, want to see a big budget Hollywood movie, and believe that Peter Jackson will deliver.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

this makes sense

 

[PleoMax]

I find it really funny that people around here are "worried" about MS finances....

 

[Pseudo judo]

Halo 2 sold a little under 8 million copies worldwide. Their 'purchasing power' (sic, misused term) would have to be such that they would be willing to spend $40 each on the movie*.
Now of course there are going to be people that will see it that don't own the game, but likewise there are those that own the game but won't see it. Just rough figures (with no real merit but illustrates the so-called purchasing power).
This is a lot of money for a production that due to the circumstances won't have a hugely marketable star in the mold of Tom Cruise. Plus it's a sci-fi movie based on a video game, which automatically narrows itself down to a certain demographic which often doesn't transend into mass appeal.

* 8x40 = 320. Let's say the cinemas take 40% of the box office and the distributor 15% and the director/cast are allocated points worth another 10%. That's 65% of the revenue gone. $144million left over which is around the budget. This is before factoring in advertising which could amass another $70-100million.

Pseudo math and percentages hardly tell the story.

I'm not a Christian, I was raised agnostic, I've never been to church or read the Bible unless it was part of my Catholic schools requirements. Yet I was one of the people donating to the Mel Gibson fund in the first week The Passion of the Christ came out. Why? Because I was more then a little aware of the subject, I admired Mel as a Director after seeing his other work and I bought into the hype.

We just have different opinions is all. You believe along simular lines as the studios, I believe there is something here that they, and you, are missing. We'll see whn the movie comes out I guess.

 

[Zaptruder]

Eh. This costs will be eaten up by the home entertainment division.

A bit more red there won't look *that* bad.

Hell, Microsoft is rich enough to throw money into cock stroking projects... and there are a lot of nerds at microsoft. Lets hope it's made for the sake of the rest of the nerds.

Let's hope what doesn't happen is, Play Halo 3! Now watch the Film to see how it all ends!

 

[Francias Castiglione]

Halo 2 sold a little under 8 million copies worldwide. Their 'purchasing power' (sic, misused term) would have to be such that they would be willing to spend $40 each on the movie

:lol What a lot of nonsense.

I'm sure those 8 million people all played the game in complete solitude and would go the theater by themselves.

 

[mckmas8808]

145 million by hollywood standards is high but compared to other films it's comes in about right. War of the Worlds, for example, cost 132 million to make and I think as an intellectual property it doesn't have nearly half the appeal and certainly the popularity of Halo. Add in tie ins like merchandising--where the real money is anyways--and dvd/hdvd sales and the studios are still stupid for passing, imo.

Jesus Christ War of the Worlds will cost less than HALO the movie??? Man I see why they pulled out. This movie starting at $145 million does seem high does it guys?

I mean I can see the finished product costing $100-$125 million, but $145 million before even starting??? ****!!!! By time the movie is done it will probably cost $160 million. Then add in $20 million for advertising and it will be hard to make their money back.

How much do you see this movie making? I can see it making between $100 to $200 million depending on how good it is and how much Europe likes it.

 

[My Arms Your Hearse]

8 million people seeing a movie isn't very much.

 

[jax (old)]

they should be able to make money on this. Hard not to.

128 million is chump change... worldwide they should be easily able to get it back + profit. Unless the film does really suck shit.


as for the deal breaking... and MS's profit grab... well, they were asking for the studios to back out... and not knowing the exact details.. they really were pushing it. This way, MS gets it all... which is what they wanted to do anyway.

 

[syllogism]

Some of you still seem to be under the impression 100% of box office revenue goes to the studios. Microsoft will be lucky to see 50-60% (perhaps more since they'll get significantly more during first weekend) of it. If we don't take dvd sales into account, it would probably have to do close to 300million to be profitable for Microsoft.

 

[HocusPocus]

I mean I can see the finished product costing $100-$125 million, but $145 million before even starting??? ****!!!! By time the movie is done it will probably cost $160 million. Then add in $20 million for advertising and it will be hard to make their money back.

$20 million for advertising on a $160 movie (production costs) would be insanely low.

 

[Pseudo judo]

Jesus Christ War of the Worlds will cost less than HALO the movie??? Man I see why they pulled out. This movie starting at $145 million does seem high does it guys?

Universal was one of the Studios that pulled out, was it not?

In Universal Pictures' upcoming "Evan Almighty," comedian Steve Carell plays a Noah-like congressman commanded by God to hoard hundreds of animals in an ark the size of a cruise ship.

Unexpected costs for visual effects and the logistical challenges of filming hundreds of live animals have turned what was supposed to be a $140-million movie into a $160-million one that could climb as high as $175 million by the time it's finished. With marketing expenditures, the film is expected to cost at least $250 million.

They Pass on Halo but pump 250 million into the sequel to Bruce Almighty. Universal ftl.

90 million of which was advertising budget, btw.

 

[Borys]

What was the last successful game to movie adaptation?
What was the last box-office successful game to movie adaptation?

Looking at Halo: The Movie script Hollywood execs don't see 8 million unwashed Xbox fans rushing to the theathers, they see DOA, Resident Evil, Bloodrayne, Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, Final Fantasy: Spirits Within etc. floppage and say "No, thanks".

Movie execs != TeamXbox posters you know.

Personally, I say **** em all and make a full 90 minutes Halo: The Movie FMV like the Halo Wars one. That was badass.

 

[Captain AHat]

Sony Pictures need to pick it up, just for the laughs it would bring from gamers everywhere.