Jackson doing Halo film only if Blomkamp is director

by Ross Miller { May 28th 2007 at 7:15PM }

That ever-elusive Halo film may soon see the light of day, according to attached producer and Hobbit scholar Peter Jackson, but that he'll only do it if Neill Blomkamp stays on as director.

Jackson said in an interview with OnFilm that he believes movie studios 20th Century Fox and Universal Pictures, who backed out of funding the movie, will have renewed interest spurred by the impending Halo 3 onslaught.

Speaking with Joystiq earlier this month, Bungie's Frank O'Connor said that Blomkamp, a relatively unknown director, was still attached to the project. "That was one of the rumors. It's a lot more complicated than that. But Neil Blomkamp is still working really closely with Peter Jackson," he said.

"We wouldn't want to do it with anybody else. It'll be Neill's call," said Jackson.

If Fox and Universal still don't interest, Microsoft should produce more than enough funding come September 25.

[Via Cinematical]

Tags: bungie, halo, jackson, Neill-Blomkamp, Peter-Jackson

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

that'smypowerupahole @ May 28th 2007 7:33PM

yeah, leave Jackson alone so he could do my damn Evangelion movie!!! Fuckin' movie studios are badly run. No awareness of us gamers at all.

Rowd149 @ May 28th 2007 7:33PM

Blomkamp, we know where you live.

Ian Von Porter @ May 28th 2007 7:40PM

MS could have had their movie... except they wanted 10 million up front, Universal and Fox had to flip the entire $200+ million budget, they basically have ZERO creative input, they dont get to choose the director... so, what is in it for the studios exactly?

MS got greedy and now no one wants to play with them. May Sony will produce it and release it on BluRay.

sheppy @ May 28th 2007 7:57PM

"MS could have had their movie... except they wanted 10 million up front, Universal and Fox had to flip the entire $200+ million budget, they basically have ZERO creative input, they dont get to choose the director... so, what is in it for the studios exactly?"

Thank you. People love to skip this part when ranting about how Hollywood is in the way of this project.

People need to realize, that's $200 million that would need to be recovered. And for what? A fucking video game movie. Sorry, Halo fans, but your shit doesn't appeal to the mainstream. It doesn't have the legs Spiderman, Priates, or even Shrek has. This would be them throwing money in a hole.

I know I know very little in regards to all the inside info but I promise you this, if Peter Jackson came forward with a budget like $70 million and Microsoft was wanting as much of the merch percentage they want now, we wouldn't be looking at this as "well, when is it going to happen?" We'd be staring at teaser movie posters right now. $200 million blow on a movie is insane to begin with (it took $75 million to destroy Square Pictures). Couple this with the disappointing returns on King Kong and the fact that this IS just a video game movie, no duh they can't get backing.

Grey Fox @ May 28th 2007 8:24PM

Once they see the cash registers on fire September 25th they'll remember why they should make this movie. Their calculators will prevail eventually and if we're lucky so will the fantastic creative forces behind the film.

Craigo @ May 28th 2007 8:30PM

Worst argument ever, Peter Jackson. Unless they plan on selling tickets for fifty dollars each, the success of the Halo video games have little to do with the success of a film. If every Halo owner went twice, they'd still be far from profitable.

Tyler @ May 28th 2007 8:39PM

I hope Neil Blomkamp ends up directing the Halo movie. His short films have given me enough faith to trust him with the Master Chef.

Plus, there's that added underdog merit that comes with an unknown doing a HUGE blockbuster. Imagine if Star Wars had cast nothing but AAA actors for the first three movies. Could you picture Dennis Hopper as Han Solo? Me either.

Jeff @ May 28th 2007 9:04PM

They should also consider the money they'll make when the film shows up on hd-dvd.

sheppy @ May 28th 2007 10:11PM

@Grey Fox & Jeff

Maybe you guys don't seem to understand. You fail to realize a sense of scale. Allow me to show you something.

This movie, Mortal Kombat, was made for around $20 million. Now look at the money it made to become profitable. This is, what I consider, the largest success, financially, any video game money has had.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113855/business

Now keep in mind, this is one of the success stories (Paul A Anderson went on to another couple success stories with his Resident Evil films and he's now the guy in charge of Castlevania).

Now, along comes a spider. With a budget of $139 million. This was, quite frankly, a HUGE risk for Sony considering it was a comic movie. However, Spiderman has a more broad appeal than Master Chief. But here are the business numbers.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/business

Now, we all know Halo sold ten million copies of Halo 2. HOWEVER, before Fox and Universal would recover the $200 million investment, they would HAVE to gross well over $280 million before they turned a profit. Now, not only is this a huge, insurmountable number, but out of this Microsoft wants a HUGE cut. And despite your claims, who is going to see this movie?

Halo fans and their girlfriends who get dragged to the theatre. Nobody else will have dick all worth of interest in this movie. And no, a space marine shooting a ton of aliens does NOT have the broad appeal. Halo, the movie, as it's currently envisioned is a huge money pit.

And the tragic part? The entire project had the biggest starting budget of any video game movie so far. It had a $120 million dollar budget. Funding was pulled for the project the moment Peter Jackson told them he was going to be blowing that budget by at least $80 million. And in the end, we are left with a huge question on our hands.

How can both Resident Evil movie budgets, despite the special effects and high action sequences, be made for under $80 million and Peter Jackson can't make Halo for $120?

Rubang B @ May 28th 2007 10:15PM

Yeah, Microsoft should just start making an assload of movies to flood the market with new HD DVD content to battle Blu-Ray. They can make a Halo anime series box set, some more Halo machinima, the live action movies, documentaries, make a Shadowrun movie (based on the older games though), make a Viva Pinata cartoon series, the works. A whole Microsoft Games Pictures Studio division.

kraoro @ May 28th 2007 10:16PM

Man, they need to hurry up and make this movie. I'm dying to watch space marines run through identical rooms and shoot things for two hours.

Rubang B @ May 28th 2007 10:28PM

A whole 2 hours, huh? Well at least the movie will last longer than the single player campaign.

ZAM!

Fireborn @ May 28th 2007 10:34PM

well, i dont know about you guys but

have you seen the new transformers trailer?
it looks DECENT even though the cartoon looks lame as anything (my little brother watches it), take the same idea with halo, if it looks cool people that dont play it will want to see it too

Rubang B @ May 28th 2007 10:39PM

Transformers was 8902721 times bigger than Halo currently is. There has been at least one Transformers cartoon on the air for over 20 years now, with comic books and toys and even G.I.Joe crossovers. Everybody knows about Transformers. They had toys that transformed. People hear Halo and think of angels, and then you say "No it's a video game about shooting aliens," and they stop listening.

sheppy @ May 28th 2007 10:47PM

Actually, to me, Transformers looks like pure ass. Or should I say the new Transformers look like Bionicles with car parts randomly glued to them. Personally, I thought Transformers the movie was doomed from the moment they started hyping it as a Michael Bay film (like, when has that EVER been a good thing?). But as someone else stated, not only does Transformers have years and years of product familiarity, but it was also made for $150 million, at least $50 million cheaper than Jackson wants for Halo...

Magetto @ May 28th 2007 11:02PM

"Halo fans and their girlfriends who get dragged to the theatre. Nobody else will have dick all worth of interest in this movie. And no, a space marine shooting a ton of aliens does NOT have the broad appeal. Halo, the movie, as it's currently envisioned is a huge money pit."

No one is going to see a space marine movie? Maybe your forgot about films such as http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090605/business and
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/business

If done correctly this film has the potential to make tons of money as a Space Marine movie, and this is ignoring the popularity of Halo.

Also, the resident evil movies don't exactly have superb special effects. It's safe to assume Mr. Jackson wants Halo's special effects at the same level of Starwars, Spiderman, and Lord of the Rings. Good or bad you can't do that with a small budget.

The Unworthy @ May 29th 2007 12:32AM

Good Christ willing Peter Jackson won't get his over rated poison drenched talons anywhere near Halo.

Craigo @ May 29th 2007 1:44AM

Dear God, someone is actually holding up Starship Troopers as a shining example of good business sense.

Dude, Starship Troopers bombed. Films need to gross twice their budget to make a profit. You don't think theaters show films out of the goodness of their hearts, do you? They take a cut. At $200m+, you're looking at a 400 million dollar floor.

Tim @ May 29th 2007 2:01AM

@Craigo

It may have bombed but it was damn good.

I say make it. Because I want to see it. If they lose money then screw them, they're all super rich anyway. Just make another Lord of the Rings and they'll break even. I mean break double. Oh wait they are.

makesevenupyours @ May 30th 2007 1:21AM

seriously...i am ALL FOR this movie...but starship completely BLEW!

anyways...it would be MOSTLY halo fans, but i think plenty of action flick junkies would want to see it. and heck, they could make a good trailer and attach it to a bigtime movie and BOOM...interest from non halo fans.

is 200 a little much to ask for though? yes.

t_m @ May 29th 2007 3:04AM

The only thing interesting about the movie is Blomkamp. Halo have a very generic, ripped off from other sci-fi movies setting and plot.. so its basically a poor choice for a movie adaption.. but this guy's unique style could actually make it into a really compelling movie.

Otherwise its just gonna be a cgi-heavy rip-off of aliens and starship troopers.

Why do movie studios buy the most STUPID game licenses that won't work as movies? Doom, Halo, The Sims, Mortal Kombat? Dungeon Seige? What's next, Brain Training the movie?

They should license games with unique settings, or decent, ORIGINAL plots and characters. Off the top of my head, i'd suggest Thief and Starcraft.

IraB @ May 29th 2007 4:21AM

does anyone realize that crap movies like Night at the Museum, Bruce Almighty, and lots of others all grossed over $400 million dollars? This puts them above even Craigo's floor price.

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-highest-grossing-films

And honestly if movies like Night at the Museum and Meet the Fockers, can do it, if the halo movie can avoid any major pitfalls and is at least watchable (unlike Doom) it should turn a profit.

And remember a lot more people out there have played halo than actually ever bought a copy. There's a bigger fan base than most people realize.

And really (if they make it) even if it's terrible, i'm still going to see it because i'm a total halo fanboy.

Ryuukuro @ May 29th 2007 8:00AM

It's great that Jackson is sticking with Blomkamp. If nothing else it shows that Peter really believes in the young director and wants to give him a fair shot. It also shows that, once again, he's listening to the people. Maybe next he'll recut King Kong to be half as long? (That last part was a joke.)

your left nut @ May 29th 2007 8:48AM

Peter Jackson wants to spend so much money on CGI because he owns the special effects company. He gets to pay his own studio for the work. He probably overcharges himself since it's not his money he is spending, but it is money he is making.

Realfaxmachine @ May 29th 2007 8:52AM

Okay can someone anwser me this question: out the millions of people who saw LOTR trilogy in the theaters, how many had read atleast one of the books prior to wachting the first movie?
I know one thing i never even heard of LOTR prior to the movies but i saw a trailer en went to see it and was blown away. So that argument of only halo players and their girlfriend just isnt accurate. (sorry about my english it is not me first language)

sheppy @ May 29th 2007 9:39AM

@Magetto

Starship Troopers flopped. Period. So no, people don't want to see Nazis in Space... erm, I mean Starship Troopers. Also, Aliens, for the longest time, was considered a "break even" flick. Only once it got it's cult status did it actually turn profitable.

So no, a super cyborg single handedly taking down an alien empire doesn't have mass market appeal. It didn't for Riddick. What Halo needs to be, to turn profitable, is a mindless action flick. And a mindless action flick needs a much lower budget than $200+ million.

The only problem is, since LOTR, Peter Jackson is like a kid in a candy store on effects. Not to mention he cannot tell a story to save his fucking life. I mean, aside from how many scenes just shouldn't have lasted as long as they did on LOTR, just look at King Kong. That was a horrible movie. Not horrible because of the effects but rather the pacing was completely off and he kept developing characters that did NOT need to be developed. And the very worst thing about the Halo project is they won't be able to USE Peter Jackson's name on that movie like they could the King Kong turd they slid into the market. After all, he's not the director.

Also, I used Resident Evil as an example because it costs roughly a quarter of the original budget PJ was given. So what you have is PJ being given four times the budget Resident Evil had and this still isn't good enough?

@Tim
It bombed but it was good? That's your entire arguement in favor of going ahead with the project? Look, in regards to Halo, all the traditional "money makers/recovery" tactics of old have a limit on this franchise. Microsoft wants majority of the merch rights. So while old tactics like using screenshots at Taco Bell or theming a section of Six Flags would support other endeavors, majority of that money would be going to Microsoft this time out and not to Fox and Universal. So what you have is this.

Fox and Universal financing fanservice, Microsoft profiting from it.

@IraB

You also realize, of course, that the people who OWN Halo that would actually go out an see the movie is also lower than you expect, right? Yes, people who played the game may or may not go. Also, people who have never played the games will go. But you are talking a hell of a lot of people needing to go before it's profitable.

You may be a Halo fanboy, but Fox and Universal are Money fanboys. And at $120 million, they saw profitability. At $200 million? Not so much.

Jake @ May 29th 2007 10:33AM

If a Halo movie came out, hard-core fans of the game wouldn't be the only people to go see it. Spiderman is appealing mostly to people that never read a comic book. The Lord of the Rings did very well and was watched mostly by people who hadn't read the books. Hell, the movie made me read the books!

Halo would work because it is practically a house-hold name. Sure, Halo fans going to see it 10 times or whatever will help. It will really help that those Halo nuts will perhaps drag others into the movie with them or at least word of mouth advertise for the game.

With that said, the budget is too large for this to become reality and MS wants too much on the royalties side. The movie should be made for about 120 million.