Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Da Dego, 23 Oct 2006.
So its on track, but they have no-one to distribute it yet.
im sure sony pictures would be glad to back it.. we need one part of sony to do well at least
Am I the only one who wonders why Microsoft needs to find a financial backer for this project? Is it running a bit low on cash? Surely there must be a few billion sloshing around the piggy banks somewhere?
Don't Microsoft own Bungie?
MClean - yea i was thinking that too, and Doug, i dont think so, dont they own Rare?
My thoughts exaclty. I think they just need one of the mpaa big boys to do the distro or the theaters may not show it
I hope to our lord Jebus they never make a half-life movie, the games are an interactive movie that are far more entertaining (as long as you buy the 300$ (graphics card) movie ticket).
Err, yeah. So I'm not the only person that doesn't find it strange that Microsoft wants financial backing for the Halo film. And its not like they're a bunch of strangers to advertising either; if they can manage to sell a PC dolled up to look like a console, surely they can manage to promote a film.
i thught they were owned by microsoft.. ater all why would halo be pretty much an xbox exclusive till it was really old. plus if they were independent it would be on the ps2 too.
I don't think it's necessarily that they need money to make the film... I think they need a name (in the movie industry) to be able to publish the film and get it to the market...
They cancelled Oni 2 for Halo.
They cancelled a sequel to a piece of minor genius in order to produce possibly the most uninterestingly average thing since... since... since the first time that something was found to be about as good as a lot of other, similar things.
So now, on the authority of a lot of Xbox owners whose entire previous gaming experience involves an Italian plumber, we unblanchingly accept that Halo is anything other than completely forgettable.
Decry me if you like, but the sort of thinking that takes Sonic 3D as a serious benchmark of gaming quality is the reason why excretia like Battlefield 2142 is being lapped up by people too stupid to recognise that they're being taken for a ride, dropped off in a remote, rainy location, and abandoned there for several hours.
Or, to put it even more simply for those of us barely old enough to grip a 360 controller (and certainly not old enough to deal with a keyboard and mouse) - Halo is a very average game. There are dozens, literally dozens, of first-person shooters out there that are as good as Halo. It doesn't deserve the hyperventilating reviews; the themed casemods, or the life-sized Master Chief in Game on Oxford Street.
And it certainly doesn't deserve a movie.
Oh, I don't know. I really enjoyed the first Halo. It was the first game in a long while that I actually wanted to play through to the end. It took me all of 4 days to complete but that's another matter.
It has one damned good story line.
I have my doubts, but I hope to high heaven it doesn't suck as much as some game-movie converts.
I, personally, think the storylines are a bit lacking, crucify me as much as you like, but damn, it's pretty much a Half-Life. (In that HL 1 and 2 are basically the same crap, different tasks and different places. Same start, same middle, same end.) Halo has, so far, been the most entertaining thing that is 4 player that my friends and I can drunkenly operate, for that reason, I'll probably buy the third and see the movie, one way or another.
The same can be said for pretty much every game.
Halo was not revolutionary or anything special or different at all. And it dosent need or deserve a movie, just look at the doom movie.
For me, Halo was great because it featured a nice long co-op mode I could play with my dad few others really match that function.
Having said that, we played Halo 2 for about 6 hours (and then me for another 6-8 hours alone) and never went back to it..
Doom was a fantastic B movie. I hope Halo is the same .
Separate names with a comma.