Studios pull out of Halo film

By Rob Fahey Published 20 October, 2006

Fox, Universal unhappy.

Microsoft's ambition to get a big-budget Halo movie into cinemas has taken a knock this week, with film studios Universal and Fox pulling out of the deal they had struck with the software giant after a last-ditch attempt to renegotiate terms was rebuffed.

The film has been attracting controversy in the movie business since Microsoft first sent the Alex Garland (The Beach, 28 Days Later) penned script to studios, with one of the most hefty price tags ever seen for a licensed property attached to it - as well as a demand that Microsoft Game Studios and developer Bungie be given almost complete creative control over the project.

Despite these terms, Fox and Universal reached an agreement whereby they would team up to fund and distribute the movie - but just ahead of a key October 15th milestone date, the studios approached executive producers Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh demanding that their deals should be improved. Jackson and Walsh refused, and now Fox and Universal have pulled out, leaving the Halo movie without funding or a distribution deal.

Although rumours have reportedly been flying around Hollywood in recent weeks that the budget for the film has skyrocketed to over $200 million, making it into one of the most expensive videogame movies in history, a spokesperson for Jackson and Walsh denied that vehemently in comments made to film industry bible Variety.

"The only budget the filmmakers every spoke about was $145 million less the 12.5 per cent rebate that you get from shooting in New Zealand, which would put it at about $128 million," spokesperson Ken Kamins told the magazine. "That was the only number that was ever discussed."

Although losing the involvement of the studios is obviously a big deal for the Halo movie, all is not lost - and pre-production work is continuing apace at Weta Digital and Weta Workshop, the New Zealand based visual effects companies which Jackson created to build the Lord of the Rings movies.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is said to be in talks with other distribution partners already - and given the growing strength of the Halo brand, it seems unlikely that the movie will be without a studio partner for long. Microsoft's commitment to developing the Halo franchise was demonstrated clearly at X06 last month - with the firm revealing that as well as the upcoming Halo 3, work is also underway on a strategy title, Halo Wars, as well as a new trilogy of products set in the Halo universe which will be helmed by Peter Jackson.

Picture of Rob.

About Rob Fahey

Rob Fahey is a former editor of GamesIndustry.biz who spent several years living in Japan and probably still has a mint condition Dreamcast Samba de Amigo set.

Read more articles from Rob by visiting the Rob Fahey archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (117) Latest comment 6 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • PS3lol #1 5 years ago

    Fisrt again, I''m on a roll

  • stevencole7 #2 5 years ago

    :(

  • Pogle #3 5 years ago

    I cant imagine this is more than a speed bump for the eventual release of a HALO film, the brand is too important to ms to abandon like this.
    Good call though. Whats Uwe Boll doing at the moment? /titter

  • AcidSnake #4 5 years ago

    They should release it through colombia tristar...
    Or any other Sony owned studio...

    I still feel Peter Jackson should be kept well away from videogaming...

  • sturgeon #5 5 years ago

    Ha, at this rate M$ may end up crawling to Sony Pictures. Now that would be amusing.

  • Penguinzoot #6 5 years ago

    That would be amusing yes. Although I don't imagine Sony would turn the project down if they thought there was a decent chance of making a lot of money on it ;-)

  • teamonkey #7 5 years ago

    SciFi channel?

  • Zuiyo #8 5 years ago

    This is actually good news. Creators refusing to bow down to pressure from finance moguls and distributors, hey give me more of these any day. If anything, this is a guarantee that the movie will not be a creative compromise. If this is the case, then Jackson and Co. are way better off without Fox and Universal.

  • skillian #9 5 years ago

    It doesn't sound like it was a dispute over creative freedom - more over the size of Jackson/MS's paychecks...
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 13:54

  • Penguinzoot #10 5 years ago

    Also, Jackson went through the same stuff when Miramax pulled out of LOTR. Found another backer though.

  • Xerx3s #11 5 years ago

    \0/

    No film = no fuckup.

  • Steroyd #12 5 years ago

    Truer words were never spoken.

  • oceanmotion #13 5 years ago

    @Zuiyo

    Yep, totally agree. Glad that Fox don't have their mits on it anymore. They probadly wanted to penny pinch and save £1million instead of a good movie. Good on MS and PJ for calling their bluff.

  • spongebob #14 5 years ago

    Good. Hopefully the whole film gets canned. Halo's story is horrible drivel which doesn't need to get any bigger than it already is. Why on earth the biggest game on Xbox has to be about some comic aliens and faceless space marines.

  • [TR] #15 5 years ago

    I don't see the need to make a movie out of cinematic inspired/presented videogames.
    They can often stand up to movies in their own right AND are "interactive". Plus, in the games they can take the time to expand the story as much as they want. Which is one of the main problems with movie adaptations.
    The only reason for doing these movies (and I'm thinking MGS and Halo) is money.
    And when everyone is touting increased next-gen game development costs, why not put more money into the games instead of movies?
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 14:16

  • Rash' #16 5 years ago

    Frankly, I say big deal. Didn't Bungie have a big involvement in the creation of the script? And isn't the director at the helm of the film a first timer? And who honestly (with a straight face) can name me a good videogame movie adaptation from hollywood? I'm glad Universal and Fox canned the film. From what I understand Microsoft were being unreasonable. If it gets made mark my words; it'll be a stinker.

  • Machiavel #17 5 years ago

    Full creative control, big share of profits - shouldn't they just fund it themselves then?

  • septimus #18 5 years ago

    Can only be a good thing. Fox suck.

  • peterfll #19 5 years ago

    Jackson probably has a 'don't give a fck' attitude at the moment, given how he's stated he's 'bored' with films anyway.

    Still, many films go through a similar sequence of events. They still get made.

  • holsty101 #20 5 years ago

    weta digital/workshop were both set up well before the rings films...

  • Dizzy #21 5 years ago

    >shouldn't they just fund it themselves then?

    Well they are not in the publishing business so I guess they don't want to get into that.

    Anyway... the Halo movie is almost guaranteed to be a big success (financial wise) so i guess publishers will jump in soon. It has been a while since we had some good SF epic movies.... looking forward to it. Especially if it is the Fall of Reach.

  • KillahSouljah #22 5 years ago

    Oh shame, not looking to good for Halo fans.

    So how does it feel to hear abit of bad news, sucks dont it, well xbox fangirls deserve it.

    pay to play games online.

    pay extra for a hd-dvd drive that only plays videos

    dish out more money for a motion sensing controller that microsoft will release in the future.

    PLAYSTATION 3's the FUTURE! and you all know it.

  • Roamer #23 5 years ago

    The Halo universe is just silly - cookie-cutter space marines and stupid-looking aliens. I can't imagine this ever becoming a good movie, it'll be like Power Rangers : In Space, but I'll definetly catch if it comes out though :)

  • urban #24 5 years ago

    hah.

  • bit_mite #25 5 years ago

    @KillahSouljar

    Er, half of what you said doesn't even make sense... couldn't you go and find some brightly-coloured shapes to play with, instead of posting here?

    Mixed feelings about the film - I enjoyed the original Halo's story, but Halo 2's was muddled and - at times - boring. I've also lost a lot of faith in Peter Jackson after King Kong...

  • AcidSnake #26 5 years ago

    "shouldn't they just fund it themselves then?"
    Yes, but where would microsoft find that kind of money?
    Errm...

    KillerSoulJah...We're talking about a movie about an IP which has appeared on xbox, where the hell do you even see a connection with the PS3?!

    Talking about blu-ray makes me speculate though...
    The HALO movie will only be released on HD-DVD after the cinemas...
    Could happen...

  • Steroyd #27 5 years ago

    I find it bloody amazing how XBL subscription fees, HD-DVD and Playstation 3 got stuffed into this comments section.

  • rinoaMW #28 5 years ago

    "Frankly, I say big deal. Didn't Bungie have a big involvement in the creation of the script?"

    Only as far as keeping the script true to the source material...

    "And isn't the director at the helm of the film a first timer?"

    Someone called Neill Blomkamp? (From imdb.com) but I doubt Peter Jackson will let him ruin a film with his name affiliated with it.

    "And who honestly (with a straight face) can name me a good videogame movie adaptation from hollywood? "

    I'd like to say Silent Hill.

    "I'm glad Universal and Fox canned the film. From what I understand Microsoft were being unreasonable. If it gets made mark my words; it'll be a stinker."

    Its not really canned is it, if pre-production is still going full steam ahead? This won't stay producer less for very long.

  • Weezer #29 5 years ago

    Never could understand why fans hold so much sway in where Cortana might be going and who the big gooey monster is and all that crap. It's just so much sub-par pulp SF nonsense. Halo is good because you can shoot the shit out of loads of things. The story is, for me, pretty much irrelevant.

    Master Chief could be going down the shop for some fags for all I care - as long as I can blow the slimy guts out of some motherfucking alien chav horde on the way, I'm happy.

    Having said that, as long as the film has enormous spaceships, LOTR-sized battles and no bloody love-interest... bring it on.

  • Les #30 5 years ago

    "The Halo universe is just silly - cookie-cutter space marines and stupid-looking aliens."

    Yeah, the Master Chief character design is hideous, thank god it's an FPS... Have I ever mentioned that it's also the most stupid character name ever?! It's all way too American for me.

  • SeesThroughAll #31 5 years ago

    Chances are, the studios are actually doing the franchise a favour.

  • Fatallyflawed #32 5 years ago

    I read that Neill Blomkamp is the same guy that did the, imo, excellent transforming citreon advert.


    @ KillahSouljah please post your mindless, sony fanboy drivel elsewhere

  • playgen #33 5 years ago

    I couldnt understand all the hype about the story and characters when i played the first game, its all pretty basic stuff. I cant see a film about a faceless dull bloke in as suit being particularly interesting, it will probably be all cgi speciall effects and not much else. Now a game with a great story is Shenmue not that it needs a movie made of it, its just an example of something that has some emotion in it.

  • Xerx3s #34 5 years ago

    Full creative control, big share of profits - shouldn't they just fund it themselves then?

    Unlimited funds != knowhow. For the best example of that, see the xbox. It took them years to figure out the market and they finally seem to be learning. Slowly. Very, very slowly.

    I find it bloody amazing how XBL subscription fees, HD-DVD and Playstation 3 got stuffed into this comments section.

    Huh? Must be my ignore setting as ignorance is bliss.

    Have I ever mentioned that it's also the most stupid character name ever?!

    It's a rank, not a name.
    /nitpicking ftfuw. ;p

    Actually, I was initially in favour of a film when I read the first part of the original script (by the 28 days guy). That was just fantastic and it had everything to become a LotR epic story. When they changed it and released the comments by the new writer, they lost me.

    Either use the original script or don't bother at all. It just has Uwe Boll fuckup written all over it.

  • Les #35 5 years ago

    "It's a rank, not a name."

    It is? Oh, sorry... But then it's actually quite a silly rank IMO... ;)

  • andrewwd #36 5 years ago

    Nice to see some consensus on the weakness of the Halo 'universe'. I love Halo as a game, but there really isn't enough narrative depth to justify a movie. The story is crummy, and the master chief design is just...shit. To me it's a franchise that is succesful in spite of its art direction rather than because of it. I really can't see a movie doing it any favours, unless they re-do most aspects, which would no doubt rile the core audience.

  • Dizzy #37 5 years ago

    >It is? Oh, sorry... But then it's actually quite a silly rank IMO... ;)

    Next time.. like actually... play the game.

    >The story is crummy, and the master chief design is just...shit

    MC is based on Spartans... you know ... the Greek warriors.

    Well I am sure ancient Greeks are TEH shit anyway.. you probably like crossdressing spiky hairded Japanese emo-goths with swords.
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 15:27

  • KD #38 5 years ago

    Neill Blomkamp will be a legend in a few years if his short films are anything to go by, i dont care about what the film is i just want to watch a full film by the guy

  • kangarootoo #39 5 years ago

    IMPORTANT PUBLIC SERICE ANNOUCEMENT.

    If EVERYONE simply ignored killasouljah and his like, he would lose his purpose. Don't respond, not even slightly, not ever. Use the ignore button if you have to, but keep it zipped either way.

    This is the last I will ever write on the subject.

  • AcidSnake #40 5 years ago

    @kanga
    You're probably right...
    I just don't like ignoring people...

  • BrokenSymmetry #41 5 years ago

    >It is? Oh, sorry... But then it's actually quite a silly rank IMO... ;)

    In fact, "Master Chief" is an actual rank in the U.S. Navy: "Master Chief Petty Officer" is the highest enlisted rank in the U.S. Navy, and is commonly referred to simply as "Master Chief".

  • zoidberg #42 5 years ago

    There's only Disney and Paramount left now... or Microsoft could foot the bill themselves... it's not like $145 million or whatever the movie costs is more than one weeks' worth of EU fines.

  • Drakron #43 5 years ago

    I find the commensts "MS can finish up the movie" hilarious.

    The logistics of movie production are huge, they would need to set up a movie studio just for that and distribution is even worst with so many deals that have to be made ... in short, if they wanted to "do it on their own" they would have to really get into the movie industry.

    Sony will not pick up because MS ruled Sony out from the start ... if I remenber most studios pulled out because of the costs involved, I doubt they will find someone to pick it up.

  • Foxclose #44 5 years ago

    Come on Sony pictures; help out MSFT! ;)

  • zoidberg #45 5 years ago

    Did you read my post? Of course Microsoft couldn't start the production "themselves"... like you said, the logistics aren't there. But that doesn't mean that they can't contract a studio, pay crews and shoot a movie, then distribute it. How many smaller production houses get to 3000+ wide releases in the US? Lots. There are 5/6 major studios that produce about 45-60 big-budget movies in a year, tops. Using their tech and simply paying for it is perfectly fine.

    Fox and Universal pulled out of the financing and distribution. MS could foot the bill and see to it that Buena Vista gets it into theatres... for example. As for "outside" studio funding, Disney and Paramount are still there. If they could fund Mission Impossible 3, they can suck on Halo too.

  • Sko #46 5 years ago

    "Whats Uwe Boll doing at the moment? /titter"

    I realise you're just joking but chances are Mr. Boll's perpetuation of the old chesnut that 'video games = shit films' (rather than the more acurate 'Uwe Boll = shit films'), causes filmmakers to think twice about what and if to spend their precious pennies on video game based movies.

  • stoopidgreg #47 5 years ago

    i'll make it for $1 million

  • skillian #48 5 years ago

    I blame Bob Hoskins.

  • PearOfAnguish #49 5 years ago

    I too am confused as to what is so special about Halo's story that justifies a big-budget movie. The only interesting aspect was the mysterious floating space world and that was ripped from countless other, better, sci-fi books and shows. Many of which deserve a proper adaptation more than Halo.

  • Xerx3s #50 5 years ago

    MC is based on Spartans... you know ... the Greek warriors.

    Well I am sure ancient Greeks are TEH shit anyway.. you probably like crossdressing spiky hairded Japanese emo-goths with swords.

    :D

    To me, the games appealed especially because of the art style. Especially the music. Imo, there are only a few other music directors in the games business that lvl with it (Jeremy Soule springs to mind among others).

    If EVERYONE simply ignored killasouljah

    Way ahead of you. ;p

    They could always approach Sony to distribute the film. You're gonna need Blu-Ray at some point to show off the 200 million worth of action.

    ¬_¬

    Seriously, if you set up a trap, atleast cover it with a branch or something. ;)

    As for MS entering the film industry... Not likely, but then again, stranger things have happened. One of them is sitting under my telly. -_- Improbable but not impossible.

  • BartonFink #51 5 years ago

    If EVERYONE simply ignored killasouljah and his like, he would lose his purpose. Don't respond, not even slightly, not ever. Use the ignore button if you have to, but keep it zipped either way.

    Who? Oh.

  • Grim... #52 5 years ago

    Playgen: "I cant see a film about a faceless dull bloke in as suit being particularly interesting"

    Yes, characters like that have never gone down well with audiences.
    I mean, you mention 'Vader' and everyone just gives you blank looks...

  • PearOfAnguish #53 5 years ago

    I mean, you mention 'Vader' and everyone just gives you blank looks...

    Vadar was a villain and not the main focus of the movies. Do you honestly believe they'd make a film where the protagonist spent the entire movie wearing a mask? Not going to happen.

  • Sko #54 5 years ago

    I hope they make "V for Vendetta" soon...

  • MoGamer2006 #55 5 years ago

    If this film never happens, I doubt we'll have lost the next Star Wars - neither the setting nor the implementation screamed originality and the plot was thin to the point of transparency. Not a bad game, tho', even if it was over-rated.

  • Baz_Dude #56 5 years ago

    New Line will pick the movie up and if not I'm sure MS has more than enough cash to do it all themsleves

  • PearOfAnguish #57 5 years ago

    Good point, but I've not seen it and from what I know of V for Vendetta it's a different style of film. Look at Judge Dredd, I just can't envision anybody green-lighting an action film where the main character is a faceless soldier. They'd have some difficulty finding a big name to play that part, I would imagine.

  • Schiraman #58 5 years ago

    I have to agree with people who are saying that the Halo background isn't worth a film. It's pretty generic sci-fi and the design work is mediocre - especially the main character who's pretty much lack of personality personified.

    Why not make a film based on some good sci-fi instead? It's not like there's a shortage of books out there...

  • skillian #59 5 years ago

    I know it was a rhetorical question, but of course it's because Halo already has such a huge established fanbase. A few million people at least will go and see the film regardless of how good or bad it is.
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 16:49

  • Schiraman #60 5 years ago

    Well yes, obviously - Halo is being made because it's a popular game and MS wants more money and more promotion of its key franchise. But that's my point really, it's not actually being made because it's any *good* (not as a background at least, I'm not commenting on the gameplay).

  • skillian #61 5 years ago

    Yeah, I agree. So many films seem like the cinematic equivalent of Happy Meal toys these days.

  • SomaticSense #62 5 years ago

    Best news of the week so far personally. I've always thought the idea of a Halo film stinks. Great game and great storyline/mythology, but a gut feeling tells me that NO film would be able to do it justice as I feel the premise of the games just isn't suited. Halo fans should be thankful that their fave game series isn't going to be butchered (still time, but hopefully not) after all.

    The main reason being that a lead character spending the entire time behind a mask just wouldn't work (see V for Vendetta), and if they remove the mask throughout the film (ala Judge Dredd) it would be totally going against the game. Plus the fact that the studio making it (whoever that may end up being) will more than likely insist that the A-list actor they will almost definitely try to hire to play MasterChief spends more than 75% of the film out of his mask, and will make it shit for that reason alone as all big budget blockbuster are sold purely on star power.

  • Xerx3s #63 5 years ago

    Nice to see that so many ppl think that their opinion is a fact. Oh well, at least we have other storylines that can be moulded into great films like FFAC and such.

  • justMe #64 5 years ago

    Robocop

  • kangarootoo #65 5 years ago

    @PearOfAnguish

    Its not really about the story. Its a franchise and that is how it brings it value. That doesn't make it a bad thing so long as the story is serviceable.

  • thinktank #66 5 years ago

    If you not interested in it don't watch it,

    Even better don't go out of your way to post about something on a forum that your not interested in and is not even out yet.

    we'll thats what i think, but maybe im just all crazy n stuff.

  • Xerx3s #67 5 years ago

    Nah, must be you, that many ppl can't be wrong surely.

  • Ace_McCloud #68 5 years ago

    Why does everyone assume that MasterChief will be the sole lead? If anyone's read the books they'll know there are a wealth of supporting characters that can provide the 'faces' for the majority of the film. As for the story being too thin, I enjoyed the books and thought the story was both surprisingly deep and very cinematic. And surely it's harder to fill a book than a 2 hours action film isn't it? So if they can make a half decent book then I'm sure they can make a good action film.
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 18:13

  • Lex_Luthor #69 5 years ago

    Pulled out, eh? Did they play Halo 2 or something? :)

  • Les #70 5 years ago

    "MC is based on Spartans... you know ... the Greek warriors."

    I know about Spartans and the ancient Greeks but as far as I know, Master Chief is an American military rank and has nothing to do with Sparta whatsoever...

  • thinktank #71 5 years ago

    yup im just loopy! what a nutter! i mean logic, crazy.

    weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

  • Les #72 5 years ago

    "Even better don't go out of your way to post about something on a forum that your not interested in and is not even out yet."

    If we all adhered to this rule, there wouldn't be any comments...

  • Santino #73 5 years ago

    thank god for that.

  • Veldaban #74 5 years ago

    "MC is based on Spartans... you know ... the Greek warriors. "

    Right, because Spartans would often fight in the nude, and Master Chief has a full body suit, with a helmet that looks absolutely nothing like a Spartan helmet. The only thing spartan about the games seems to be the art design.

    And speaking of V for Vendetta, there's actually a reason why he wears a mask throughout the movie/comic. The literal reason being that his face is burned off (or he wants to hide his identity), the symbolic reason being that he represents the rebel or anarchist in everyone (plus, obviously, the Guy Fawkes reference). So... admittedly only having played the Halo games briefly (and losing interest after a few minutes), is there ANY reason why Master Chief's face should be hidden? Either literal or symbolic? Because if not, I can't see how it would "ruin" the movie to show his face. In fact, sticking to it would then seem rather childish to me...

  • Xerx3s #75 5 years ago

    Right, because Spartans would often fight in the nude, and Master Chief has a full body suit, with a helmet that looks absolutely nothing like a Spartan helmet. The only thing spartan about the games seems to be the art design.
    Oh yeh? YEAH?! But the mc can crush a coke can with his hands! HAH! Take that! You tiny toymen couldn't do that eh? Bunch of pansies. Running around in their skirts.

    BAN THIS SICK FILTH!

    Ow look, a bird!

    /wanders off again
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 19:43

  • wired009 #76 5 years ago

    The Halo movie will not simply borrow the storyline from the game. MS, Jackson, Garland, and company would be supremely stupid if they did because it just isn't quality movie material and because we don't need another Doom movie. The strengths of the Halo universe lie in the characters (e.g. Master Chief, Cortana, Captain Keyes, Serge, the Arbiter) so it will play off those strengths. I haven't read any Halo novels but I'm sure there is good material there too. In my mind I see a mix of Starship Troopers (Gory SciFi action), Gladiator/Robocop (Tragic Hero), and Troy (Sexy Epic) as the recipe for Master Chief's success.

  • Ace_McCloud #77 5 years ago

    "is there ANY reason why Master Chief's face should be hidden? Either literal or symbolic? Because if not, I can't see how it would "ruin" the movie to show his face. In fact, sticking to it would then seem rather childish to me... "

    No. In fact in the books he has his helmet off plenty, he's described as being a very pale strereotypical jarhead type (except absolutely fucking massive). But they take great lengths in describing how the chief and the rest of the Spartans hate being without their armour and far prefer being in the battlefield. They all appear to be mostly social retards in the normal world who are feared and mocked by the regular soldiers, but don't really understand any of it.

    So agreed, it would seem childish not to show his face, although considering he's almost always in the battle field (he and the rest are after all just weapons and not tacticians, they leave that to their superior officers) there's no reason they need to show that much of his face, or for that matter any reason they need a 'big name actor' to play the part as someone suggested earlier in this thread...

    Personally I hope the Halo movie is something of an origin story for the chief. The first book is full of cliches, but it's cool seeing how the Spartans came into being, and reading about how they just batter the fuck out of everyone else even when they're 13 years old or whatever. (It's one of those stories where they pick up the BEST 6 yr olds in the universe, and then train and genetically enhance them for the rest of their lives until they're the ultimate super soldiers...some are too weak to survive the process but those that do are even more ultimate and super than a covenant Elite!! wooooooo!)
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 20:46

  • Walshicus #78 5 years ago

    "The Halo universe is just silly - cookie-cutter space marines and stupid-looking aliens."

    Yeah, the Master Chief character design is hideous, thank god it's an FPS... Have I ever mentioned that it's also the most stupid character name ever?! It's all way too American for me.

    It's his bloody rank you twonk. Master Chief Petty Officer John 117.

    The Halo universe is incredibly well written, should you feel the need to investigate. The apparant mixture of references to Christian, Norse and Greek mythology, as well as hints of a Sinic influence vís-a-vís the Dragon Throne / Gravity Throne similarities coupled with the styling of the Zhongguo Emperors and the Prophets of the Covenant, for instance.

    Add in a vast and mostly self consistent mythology of its own... and you have a good plot. Just most people never bother to experience it, which is itself one of Halo's greatest achievements. The story world is massive and adds a lot of depth to the experience, but if you just want to shoot shit you can skip it all.


    Aaanyhow; I'm glad Fox aren't involved. Fuck them. Fuck Fox and fuck Rupert fucking Murdoch. There.
    Edited by 1 at 20/10/06 @ 20:54

  • PearOfAnguish #79 5 years ago

    Master Chief Petty Officer John 117.

    Nah, that's still pretty silly...


    If any game should be made into a film it's Portal though that would be probably be better served by a mini-series.
    Edited by 2 at 20/10/06 @ 21:35

  • L0cky #80 5 years ago

    'I doubt we'll have lost the next Star Wars - neither the setting nor the implementation screamed originality and the plot was thin to the point of transparency. Not a bad game, tho'

    Right up until you said game, I thought you were describing Star Wars

  • dcangel #81 5 years ago

    Good. The very notion of a Halo movie is ridiculous - same as the notion of, say, a Doom movie or a Super Mario Bros movie, or indeed any other movie based on a computer game which lacks anything even resembling a good story.

  • Daikon #82 5 years ago

    Maybe Microsoft can use that money now to promote their long overdue "Windows - The Movie".

  • PearOfAnguish #83 5 years ago

    Maybe Microsoft can use that money now to promote their long overdue "Windows - The Movie".

    Well, there is a TV movie called 'Pirates of Silicon Valley'. It has Anthony Michael Hall playing Bill Gates!

  • kangarootoo #84 5 years ago

    @dcangel

    "Good. The very notion of a Halo movie is ridiculous - ...... or indeed any other movie based on a computer game which lacks anything even resembling a good story."

    Because they couldn't possibly write any new material, and would have to rely entirely on the existing content of the game for their plot and dialogue, obviously...

    O-o

  • dcangel #85 5 years ago

    "Because they couldn't possibly write any new material, and would have to rely entirely on the existing content of the game for their plot and dialogue, obviously..."

    Well, of course! They wouldn't go so far as to hire actual writers or anything like that, when there's so many special effects to create. ;)

    Still think it's a bad idea, but that's just IMO based on my lacklustre experience with the first game. It'd undoubtedly make a killing at the box-office, which (let's face it) is the whole point of the exercise.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/06 @ 08:44

  • kangarootoo #86 5 years ago

    "It'd undoubtedly make a killing at the box-office, which (let's face it) is the whole point of the exercise."

    I agree with you there :)

  • DanWhitehead #87 5 years ago

    There's really no guarantee that a Halo movie would make a killing at the box office. The performance of other videogame movies - including those with far higher public awareness - doesn't indicate that spending more than $100m would be a prudent investment. And if the budget is north of $200m (which, after prints and marketing, is quite feasible) then Fox and Universal are quite right to drop it.

    Garland's script, which cost a cool million, was nothing special. It was the cutscenes from the first game, transcribed into Final Draft and given a polish. There's nothing there to make major studios see it as the next "must have" franchise. It's Aliens meets Rambo in an expensive to render environment, with a severe lack of characters.

    And that million-dollar script has already been junked. Bungie and Microsoft's dream of landing Ridley Scott as the director has been junked. Their stunt of having the script delivered by cosplay couriers has now backfired - since the world knows that it was turned down by everyone, and even Fox/Universal only picked it up by sharing the risk.

    Warners won't touch it, after the financial beating they've taken this year on Poseidon and Superman Returns. Microsoft won't want Sony to be involved, and Sony won't want to produce a movie that will ultimately benefit X360. Mission Impossible 3 underperformed, and that starred the biggest movie star on the planet, so Paramount may not be in the mood for a "you scratch our back, we'll count the money" deal like this. New Line might pick it up because of the PJ connection but - LOTR aside - they're not really in the business of throwing hundreds of millions at movies. Buena Vista seems like the only safe haven left.

    Don't forget, the studio will be fronting hundreds of millions of dollars but not getting much back. The built-in Halo fanbase isn't enough to make this a slam dunk on its own. For this kind of budget, you need to appeal to everyone. You need a Harry Potter or a Spider-Man. Whatever Halo brings it at the box office, roughly half that figure goes to the cinemas themselves. The remaining chunk would then have to be shared between the studio(s), Microsoft and Bungie. Plus whatever participation deal Jackson has.

    Those impressive opening weekend sales comparisons for Halo 2 - "more successful than any movie ever made!" - fall apart when logic is applied. Games cost five times more than movies. Halo 2 was platform exclusive and had no real competition. It was the first game to really make use of Xbox Live multiplayer. But, in the long term, it was still outperformed by GTA and The Sims. The average moviegoer neither knows nor cares about Master Chief.

    Now Hollywood can be stupid, but not that stupid. Given the soft theatrical market at the moment, no studio executive is going to recommend putting up the money being discussed for a niche property like Halo.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/06 @ 12:58

  • Vin #88 5 years ago

    Good post, but the "Games cost five times more than movies" is a tad innacurate chief.

  • DanWhitehead #89 5 years ago

    Ballpark figure, and not wildly inaccurate if you look at US prices, but the point stands. You can't use Halo 2's sales to compare to movie releases, since the amount of money generated is automatically multiplied. Yes, Halo 2 made more in its first weekend than any movie, but then movie tickets have never cost £40 each. Microsoft's PR banter regarding Halo's place in the intellectual property pecking order has always relied on fuzzy math.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/06 @ 13:02

  • Ace_McCloud #90 5 years ago

    " It was the cutscenes from the first game, transcribed into Final Draft and given a polish. "

    Out of curiosity, how do you know this? I'd be surprised and disappointed if this was the case...

    "Whatever Halo brings it at the box office, roughly half that figure goes to the cinemas themselves. "

    This seems a little speculative. While I don't know all the ins and outs, I work in a cinema and know that Buena Vista take 90% of all ticket sales on opening weekend. While they're notorious for being the biggest bastards of the lot, the other studios are all also pretty stingy.... Didn't you ever wonder why cinemas charge so much for popcorn and the like? That's how they make their money. So half of the profits from the film will most certainly not be going to the cinemas...

    The rest of what you say sounds believable, but I'd like to have a little more faith in the creative people behind Halo - I certainly think it would be extremely foolish to make a film based on the script that you suggested at the beginning of your post, considering the wealth of material they have at their disposal.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/06 @ 13:23

  • DanWhitehead #91 5 years ago

    For example, the first Tomb Raider movie cost $115m to make, and brought in just $131m in the US (which is the figure the studios pay attention to). And that's a property with far greater cultural awareness, it was PG13, it appealed to both male and female audiences and it starred one of the world's most famous actresses. The sequel cost $20m less, but made just $65m.

    Resident Evil brought in just $40m. It's sequel, just $50m.

    Doom - probably most bean counters closest comparison - cost only $60m to make, but made only $28m.

    And all those franchise are longer established and - crucially - are multiplatform. There's a good chance that homes with a games console will have some awareness or familiarity with those titles, if not the details. But all those families who bought little Johnny a PS2 for Christmas, all those Nintendo kids, are automatically excluded from the Halo club.

    Now you could argue that all those movies sucked, and that's why they didn't do big business, but from a financial point of view there's absolutely no reason to assume that spending over $150m on a sci-fi war movie about a faceless space soldier shooting colourful aliens is anything but madness.

  • DanWhitehead #92 5 years ago

    "Out of curiosity, how do you know this? I'd be surprised and disappointed if this was the case... "

    I've read the Garland script. It's an utterly generic action movie that follows the events of the first Halo game almost to the letter. The only real deviations are some very brief flashbacks to Reach, but the storyline is Master Chief racing around the Halo, shooting Covenant soldiers, unleashing The Flood and being pestered by Guilty Spark. Nothing epic. No massive pitched battles against the Covenant. Just lots of shoot-outs in corridors.

    It's really no better than the Doom screenplay, or whatever SciFi Channel clunker Dean Cain is headlining this week.

    If I was in charge of greenlighting movies for a studio and that script landed on my desk, with the outrageous price tag, restrictions and stipulations that Microsoft/Bungie demanded, I'd check to see if it was April 1st.

    Of course, that script has now been completely abandoned (or slightly rewritten, depending on which source you believe) which begs the question: If you had a million dollar screenplay by an acclaimed author, would you rewrite it to make it more - or less - expensive?

    If and when Halo goes before the camera, my guess is the budget will have been trimmed to around $70m, the story will have been slimmed down to the bare minimum action beats and it'll be yet another passable mid-range blockbuster that slinks onto DVD without changing the world.

    "This seems a little speculative. While I don't know all the ins and outs, I work in a cinema and know that Buena Vista take 90% of all ticket sales on opening weekend. While they're notorious for being the biggest bastards of the lot, the other studios are all also pretty stingy..."

    I've been told by movie industry folk that, when all receipts are totalled up for a movie's complete run, it usually works out around 50/50. The studios do frontload the returns by claiming the bulk of the opening weekend, but the amount varies from studio to studio, and movie to movie.

    The point is that people often see the box office total, subtract the production budget, and assume that whatever is left is pure profit for the studio - which is why you get people who think that a $100m movie making $110m at the box office is something to cheer about.

    If Halo ends up costing just $145m to actually shoot, plus another $50m or so on marketing to explain to people who the hell Master Chief is, then it'll need to make well over $200m for the remainder to represent any kind of profit. And that's before the leftovers are divided up between Microsoft and Bungie, whose terms are obviously less than generous.

    Blockbuster box office returns have been unpredictable, to say the least. The track record of games-to-movies suggests that $150m box office is the ceiling - and that's with a far more marketable property, with enormous tits.
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/06 @ 13:43

  • GrandpaUlrira #93 5 years ago

    So speaks the voice of reason. I was baffled reading through this thread that people think that a Halo movie would be a surefire hit.

  • kangarootoo #94 5 years ago

    Christ, and I thought I wrote long posts.

    "There's really no guarantee that a Halo movie would make a killing at the box office"

    I was more agreeing with the point of exercise than the dosh it would make.


    You could do with a few reference links if you don't mind me saying. I'm not going to pick on specifics, but there are a few statements in your posts that you present as fact, which I know for certain to not be the case (Vin and Ace_McCloud picked you up on a couple, the rest aren't important as I feel like I'm picking on you a bit already).

    I don't mean to be arsey, I'm just thinking that if you want people to bother reading what are pretty lengthy posts (which they probably should, as you make some good points) you need people to trust that you aren't just making stuff up as you go (which at times it felt like you were, if I'm honest. If I'm wrong, a ref link is the way to convince me otherwise).

    :)

  • kangarootoo #95 5 years ago

    @GrandpaUlrira

    No film is a surefire hit. But a good film has a better chance of success than a crap one.

    Game -> movie conversions have a history of being crap films. Not because they were based on games, but simply because they were crap films. Thats the mistake people keep making when they say "games don't make good movies".

    A great book will make a shit film, if the film that ends up getting made is shit. I think the issue is that often as not when games get made into films, the budget is low AND there is an assumption by the publisher (probably true to some extent) that fans of the game will go see the film anyway regardless of its quality.

    As a concept for a film, Halo has more than enough going for it. I can think of plenty of very successful films that have much thinner concept material. A concept is only the beginning, its not what makes the film good or bad. It is the directors, screenplay writers and actors that really make or rbeak a movie.

  • Walshicus #96 5 years ago

    Dan, I don't think you have read Garland's first script... Especially since I know for a fact that it wasn't the way you describe.

    Regardless, all the talk of comparing it to Doom or Tomb Raider is bollocks. Neither of those has the same mix of mythology and internal consistency to fall back upon. I mean, we got I Love Bees from the a peripheral section of the Halo universe and that was just great. Halo's plot has all the elements of a great film - religious strife and its essential folly, the recurring theme of sacrifice, the mystery of an ancestor race and their ultimate fate, the culmination of sins vís-a-vís the Flood, the drama of constant defeat and the spin of the media at home, cool technology, an appreciation for the infantilism behind black and white perceptions of good and evil, and above all a unique art style.

    Doom and Tomb Raider have none of those, and neither have any of the game-to-movies that have been made to date. As I've said before, regardless of whether you appreciate the Halo game there's a wealth of backstory and the like there to get into IF YOU WANT TO. It's not hidden, but it's also not forced upon you like some games. If you just want to kill aliens in a metal suit, then that can be Halo for you. If you want another Marathon, then that can be Halo for you too.

  • Xerx3s #97 5 years ago

    Even if a halo film fails, it could still be a success because: A) the fanbase (and that's alot) will prolly buy the dvd and B) It will create public awareness of Halo and the 360 in general (you can bet your ass on it that every review will mention the xbox at least once).

    Still, I'm against a film as the film industry these days consists for 99% out of fucking n00b films that simply are an insult to it's viewers. And why make a film when the game is already cinematic and more/better in every aspect? Roll on H3 and stop this fucking film thing before it's to late.

  • Ace_McCloud #98 5 years ago

    After all this script chatter I tried to find something about the script online. The guy at the following link claims to have read it and has a review. He's pretty positive (and by 'pretty positive' I mean 'cumming all over his keyboard and monitor and onto our faces with excitement') but I'd take it with a pinch of salt as the way he's chatting has 'Massive Halo Fanboy' written all over it...

    [link url=http://latinoreview.com/scriptreviews/halo/review.html
    ]http://la tinoreview.com/scriptreviews/ha...[/link]

    Still, this is a review of the Garland script, and if Whitehead is to be believed then this one has been canned...which is a shame because I think we'll have one less latino in the world when the guy at this site blows his brains out over the news...
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/06 @ 16:01

  • SeesThroughAll #99 5 years ago

    For example, the first Tomb Raider movie cost $115m to make, and brought in just $131m in the US (which is the figure the studios pay attention to).

    Correction: Angelina Jolie brought in $131m.

  • DanWhitehead #100 5 years ago

    "Dan, I don't think you have read Garland's first script... Especially since I know for a fact that it wasn't the way you describe."

    I read the draft marked 2/6/05 and it was exactly as I described - the first Halo game with minor embellishments. It certainly wasn't epic, it certainly didn't introduce any new elements to the Halo universe and it certainly didn't warrant a million dollar price tag.

    You're free to doubt of course, but it was shown to me by a very reliable source. A source who has shown me many other scripts, which have all proven to be genuine. I didn't just download it from a Halo fan fiction website.

    Besides, my point is quite simple: regardless of what I or anybody else thinks about Halo's story, the games or whatever, no sensible studio is going to spend this sort of money on a Halo movie. It's too much for a videogame movie, it's too much for a movie with an anonymous lead character and it's too much for a sci-fi action movie, rewritten by an unproven writer, directed by a TV ad guy, and with no A list stars.

    In the current box office climate, a $145m Halo movie is a recipe for losing money. If the accountants Fox and Universal combined couldn't find a way to make the sums add up, who else is going to pony up that sort of money to make a movie that, to the general public, might as well be called The Adventures of Shooty Helmet Dude?

    I like Halo. I like both games a lot. But story and character are not their strongest assets, and the things that make the Halo games popular are the things that you simply can't carry over to the big screen.

  • DanWhitehead #101 5 years ago

    "Regardless, all the talk of comparing it to Doom or Tomb Raider is bollocks."

    I'm not comparing it to them in terms of story, though. I was comparing their box office performance, and extrapolating how two major studios came to the decision to bale out of an enormously expensive Halo movie.

    Even if Halo was a rich tapestry of engrossing subtexts and thought-provoking themes, the fact remains that most videogame movied make modest profits, while several have failed spectacularly. And those were movies with greater awareness of the property and major stars.

    If you look at the bottom line - which is all these people do - it's not hard to see why the studios pulled out, that's all.

  • NthSimulachum #102 5 years ago

    New Line anyone?

    "We've got Snakes on the motherfuckin' Oliphaunt!"

  • Steroyd #103 5 years ago

    The Halo universe is incredibly well written, should you feel the need to investigate. The apparant mixture of references to Christian, Norse and Greek mythology, as well as hints of a Sinic influence vís-a-vís the Dragon Throne / Gravity Throne similarities coupled with the styling of the Zhongguo Emperors and the Prophets of the Covenant, for instance.


    Star Wars had a religious sublimable message transparent in the background of the whole endeavour and all crap like that and that spawned over 6 freking episodes movie thingies being 2 long hours each.

    No way could you even begin to scratch the surface of that side of Halo and stuff enough action in to keep you interested in the 3 hours you make it sound... you don't exactly want it to be like The Matrix do you?
    Edited by 1 at 21/10/06 @ 20:13

  • MrAtheist #104 5 years ago

    Well, to quote Hollywood great William "..when I worked on Butch zzzzzzzzz..." Goldman...

    Nobody Knows Anything

    Halo as a project has a lot going against it. In Hollywood terms, Microsoft are touting round a one sided deal (fund my film and we take 15% of the gross...oh and Fran W /Peter J want a percentage of the gross also!). Its going to be tagged with the stigma of 'videogame adaptation'. Oh so what the Halo fanbase is HUGE! Sorry no it is not. Halo sold appprox 5mill+ copies, Halo2 7milll+. That is insignificant in Hollywood terms. Mario, Pokemon, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil & Tomb Raider absolutely destroy Halo in terms of sales / market awareness. I wonder if anyone will make a big budget film of those franchises...oh wait...

    BUT when all said and done, this year a film based on a theme park ride grossed a billion dollars at the worldwide box office.

    If anyone is interested in movie grosses / financing etc. I recommend http://www.boxofficemoj o.com/
    Edited by 2 at 22/10/06 @ 08:45

  • The-Bodybuilder #105 5 years ago

    Hmmmm, I'm not genius. But didn't videogame 2 movie adaptations flopped because they were......crappy films?
    I'm sure a crappy film with bad reviews (regardless of it's origin) will not sell (excluding star ward episode 1, and the matrix revelation).

    When's all said and done, I'm sure a great and big blockbuster will sell well enough. I mean, how many people REALLY knew about the Lord of the rings books before the film? (a lot of people aren't into the whole D&D world)?

  • OnlyMe #106 5 years ago

    I'd say about half of the people on this planet. That'd be around 3 billion people, am I right?

  • HIGHVOLTAGE #107 5 years ago

    HAHahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHhahahahHhahah "the Halo universe is incredibly well written" that's a good one. If you consider a bad rip off of Aliens cross bred with the usual childrens comic book cliches well written then yes. Christian and Norse mythology? - oooo its so deep- in other words they couldn't think of a mythology of their own and ripped off somebody elses.

    What's the bodybulider on about too LOTR's had a massive fanbase before it was made into a film. Bigger than any games for that matter. Its won all sorts of book popularity polls well before the movies came along. Christ look at all the sad arse fantasy bollix its inspired over the years as evidence.

    Anyway I don't expect anything from the Halo movie and the fact that both Microsoft and Peter Jackson ain't prepared to reduce their paypackets suggests they're only in it for the money. The whole problem with videogames adaptations is no matter how well written a games backstory is there's usually not anything like enough to properly dramatise. Yeah loads of games these days have cinematic bits of characters doing all kinds of matrix wonder moves in cutscenes but its the talking bits which games arn't so big on that actually make good films you know. As a result film companies employ some hack to try and create a script to flesh out paper thin characters and fall flat on their arses. Take Tombraider: Lara's a great games character- pretty gal with big jugs and big guns- works in a game. But no real personality there. The other problem is most games rip off films in the 1st place- again lets use TR as an example: Cool game because it was Indiana Jones game Lucasarts never made. So when making a film your stuck with something that's just a rip off of a more popular franchise and wont be held in the same regard no matter how good you make it. The only games that would make good movies are the Lucasarts graphic adventures and Shenmue because they come with ready made scripts that would require minimal tweaking and frankly are a bit more mature in concept than the usual comic book plotting you get in other games. But nobody will ever make them as films cause they ain't popular enough.

  • Xerx3s #108 5 years ago

    "We've got Snakes on the motherfuckin' Oliphaunt!"

    Heh, a joke that prolly isn't understood by the zealots who claim that they know about the story and say that there is nothing there. Oh well.

    And the fact that most game to film transfers fail is because the film industry are complete morons (they might have a point there) who think that their viewers are that as as well and only hunger for films that completely exist of special effects & brainless action with no story.

  • Steroyd #109 5 years ago

    I mean, how many people REALLY knew about the Lord of the rings books before the film?

    A crapload of people.

    Even little kiddies exposed to the likes of The Hobbit which is a reference related to the LOTR trilogy would be interested (It's how i became aware of the trilogy at my Primary School).

    That's like saying how many REALLY knew about Spiderman or The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe or King Kong even, all of them had a substantial awareness for them to make back the millions spent on the film.

    Videogames unlike books become obsolete when the newer more prettier version comes comics on the other hand in the instance of Spiderman and X-men became an instant blockbuster compared to other Marvel comics like Hulk, daredevil etc is because they had their own very successful TV series to reach out to a broader audience who have never read the comics or in X-men's case Patrick Stewart, the main problem with public awareness in video games is you can't reccomend something like Halo Combat Evolved that is absolutely near impossible to find these days because it's successor Halo 2 is on the shelf which is going to become non-existant when Halo 3 comes out yes like comics if you look hard enough you will find it but not many people will.

    A better example is Final Fantasy Spirits Within that's got a crapload more userbase than Halo, it had a Cinematic launch lots of advertisements etc and that nearly killed Squaresoft off financially.

    Compared to FFVII Advent Children which is way cheaper to do the same CGI movie had a very limited Cinema launch in Japan only and went straight to DVD everywhere else, and SE are very happy with the results well the shareholders aren't screaming in pain that's for sure.

  • Freek #110 5 years ago

    Spirits Within bombed not becuase it was an expensive cinematic release but becuase it wasn't a verry good film. And it had almost nothing to do with Final Fantasy so the fans diden't give a shit.
    Halo would most likely not go that route since it's a direct adaptation, with supposedly a good script.

  • Azazel #111 5 years ago

    Alternatively for another film featuring Spartans: watch the trailer for '300'.

    It will make you cry tears of manly joy, grow a beard and shout everything you say.
    Edited by 1 at 22/10/06 @ 14:47

  • matrim83 #112 5 years ago

    @Azazel.

    So right. I did not know Gattuso was cast as the lead. Seriously though that film is gonna pwn. (300 I mean)

    And AFA Halo is concerned I am disappointed but I am sure some other studio will pick it up.

  • Steroyd #113 5 years ago

    Spirits Within bombed not becuase it was an expensive cinematic release but becuase it wasn't a verry good film. And it had almost nothing to do with Final Fantasy so the fans diden't give a shit.
    Halo would most likely not go that route since it's a direct adaptation, with supposedly a good script.

    Name one Game/Comic to film adaptation that followed that Game/Comic directly.

    The Halo universe will be nothing more than a reference that people who played the game will recognise.

  • Freek #114 5 years ago

    Almost all of them? The characters, the stories, they're largely the same. But with Spirits Within they did a completly new story, no connection or style in common with the games. By direct adaptation I mean adapting the source material rather then inventing something new.
    The Halo movie is Earth vs the Covenant, with the story revolving around the Spartans, just like the games and books.
    Something the fans want and did not get from Spirits Within. FF: Advant Children was a succes, again, more direct adaptation, a sequal to the game. Same characters and settings.

    Being expensive or not, being in cinema or not, those aren't the issues.
    Being of good quality and recognisable to the fans is what's important. Otherwsie you have no audiance.

    PS; If you're so pedantic you don't feel those are direct adaptations then my answer would be Sin City and 300, pretty much direct ports of comic panel to movie scene.
    Edited by 1 at 22/10/06 @ 21:46

  • Zuiyo #115 5 years ago

    "In the current box office climate, a $145m Halo movie is a recipe for losing money. If the accountants Fox and Universal combined couldn't find a way to make the sums add up, who else is going to pony up that sort of money to make a movie that, to the general public, might as well be called The Adventures of Shooty Helmet Dude?"

    +1 here mate.

  • Freek #116 5 years ago

    Hundreds of movies get made each year that are based on nothing but an original idea, many of them extremly expensive.
    The quality is what matters, not whether or not Joe Pulbic knows what it is based on.
    Sci Fi action, a popular genre when done well. So it stands to make allot of money if done properly.

  • Nomgle #117 5 years ago

    People saying the Halo Universe is rubbish : Just STOPPIT !

    Until you've read the books, you have NO CLUE what you're talking about :) The information divulged in the games, is approximately zero - they are a TINY TINY fraction of the whole, ginormous, epic Haloverse.

    Here - http://ww w.amazon.co.uk/Halo-Flood-First... - buy them, read them, like them. They're brilliant ! There's more than enough material for a decent movie - infact, I'd go so far as to say there are very few other SciFi movies with a more convincing backstory.

  • CarTitleLoan #118 6 months ago

    They cost too much and the return's too dicey now that Hollywood's dominance in entertainment is at an end. car title loan