The Cut Scene - Video Game Blog by Variety

Gore Verbinski talks about directing the Bioshock movie

Lots of people in Hollywood have been itching to make a "Bioshock" movie pretty much since last August, as I wrote on here a few months ago.

Finally, that interest has turned to reality. Universal has struck a deal with Take-Two to make the "Bioshock" movie. "Pirates of the Caribbean" helmer Gore Verbinski will direct and produce. "Aviator" and "Star Trek: Nemesis" screenwriter John Logan will adapt.

If you haven't read it yet, get all the details in my story, which runs in tomorrow's Daily Variety and is already online. There are a lot of details there about the financial terms, how it's connected to the "Halo" movie, the key players, how the deal came together, etc., that I won't repeat here. Seriously, just read it.

For Cut Scene readers, however, I have more. Are you wondering how Verbsinski is going to treat your beloved "Bioshock?" Why he wanted to make it into a movie? How much he's collaborating with the game's creative director Ken Levine? I got on the phone with him today to get you guys some answers. Enjoy, and share your thoughts in the comments.

Me: How did this come about? What first got you interested in "Bioshock?"

Gore Verbsinski: I was hanging out a lot with Ken Levine talking about gaming in general and I heard from Ken directly that they were thinking about making a movie.

Of all the games out there, I think "Bioshock" is the one that's the most engaging. I think the whole utopia-gone-wrong story that's cleverly unveiled to players is brimming with cinematic potential.

Me: It's pretty obvious that the game has some amazing visuals that might look great in a movie. What about the story? Do you want to carry that over as well?

GV: Fans of the game will not be disappointed. Of course, it's just like anything else that you adapt. If you create a film from a game you have to break some of the game's rules and do the best job you can, because they're completely different. We can’t possibly put 30 hours of gameplay into a two hour movie. So we have to make some tough choices.

We want to take all the strengths from the property. Of all the games I’ve played, this is the one that I felt has a really strong narrative.

Me: Given all the effects that might might be involved, do you see this movie being as big and epic as "Pirates of the Caribbean?"

GV: I don’t think it'll be on that scale. Of course, with "Bioshock" there are no locations I can go to. We have to build it. We'll cleverly use matte paintings and all the technology we have to achieve a great deal of scale without actually building everything.

It's a much more intimate story than "Pirates." Although its an adventure, it’s a dramatic adventure. I see it more along the lines of "Blade Runner."

Me: You obviously have a relationship with Ken Levine. How involved do you expect him to be with the film?

GV: Right now I'm talking a lot with John Logan about it. But Ken and I speak on a regular basis in terms of what characters we feel are working well and where he feels things should be different in a movie. This is a great asset to pick up the phone and call. He has been very open to it. I look forward to continuing that relationship.

Me: The game has some very disturbing moments that present moral choices to the player in the form of the Little Sisters. How much of that do you want to present in the film?

GV: I think we'll go right up to the edge with the Little Sisters. I don’t want to soften it to the point where the core audience feels betrayed. At the same time, the gameplay is completely different than it will be for an audience watching.

The movie audience’s imagination is a lot more graphic if you let them imagine it. We'll have to be really clever with that.

Me: So given that, do you expect the movie would be rated R just as the game was M?

GV: We're prepared to make it an R-rated movie. I don’t intuitively see it as PG-13. The content and the graphic nature of the story itself is smarter than that. It's not for young kids.

The utopian references and the way the characters and world are drawn in that delightfully inspired Jules Verne and Ayn Rand style places the film in a more elevated realm. It's the realm of a graphic novel. It has to have that edge.

There's sort of that "Manchurian Candidate" psychological element in there as well.

Me: So should we expect to see a lot the same settings from the game?

GV: I hope we can take it to the next level. It's one thing that I think probably will change for the better. But only in the sense that in gameplay, everything's smaller because you have to build it all so players physically do things like ascend stairs. In a film we have time cuts. So we can make the places a little more vast and less claustrophobic

Me: Any thoughts on how you'll make the Big Daddys? Will they be CG created or can you make costumes?

GV: We could go either way. Typically when you get too burdened with animatronics, it slows down filming, especially knowing what we can do these days with computers. That being said, there's no substitute for an actor reacting. It's always a delicate balance. We'll probably end up with a hybrid.

Me: So is this the next project you'll be working on? When do you anticipate starting?

GV: I'll be starting to work on it immediately as soon as we get a script  that's worthy. We'll then move actively into pre-production. I wouldn’t put a time schedule on it so much as to say I'm jumping in with a full commitment.

Me: Will you be talking to the folks developing "Bioshock 2?" Do you see any crossover between the two or are you focused on the first game?

GV: The only crossover will be ensuring that we don’t do anything destructive to the IP.

Me: Since it's a first person game, we don't get to know the protagonist that well in the game. What are your thoughts on the main character of the film?

GV: I think ultimately he has to do with the concept of free will. We will be designing him on that idea. It will be a character who adamantly believes he does have free will.

Me: You recently spoke at D.I.C.E. and seem to be getting very interested in videogames in general. Besides the "Bioshock" film, are you interested in moving the other direction and getting more involved in making games?

GV: I’m continually fascinated with videogames as interactive entertainment: this idea that the audience is the protagonist. I think there is a whole form of narrative ready to be born.

It has been fun talking to different designers, going to Blizzard, meeting Ken. I hope to make it up to Valve. "Portal" is one of my favorites. For now, it's just an open dialogue about how far we can push this thing. 

Postal trailer bad, but not godawful

The trailer for Uwe Boll's "Postal" just debuted on IGN and I suppose we should be fair... it looks really bad, but it's not quite the worst thing I've ever seen. If this were a late night cable movie or even direct-to-DVD, I might even say it looks like it has its charm. The Bush impersonator doesn't sound at all like the president, and the inclusion of Osama Bin Laden seems beyond insane, and seeing Dave Foley makes me cringe with sympathy, not laugh with fond remembrances of "NewsRadio" and "Kids in the Hall"... but still, at least it's cut like a real trailer and has a few vaguely amusing moments. That's honestly better than I expected after Bloodrayne. Maybe Uwe is actually improving?

Whatchoo talkin' bout, John Riccitiello?

Lots of people are talking about Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello's comments in the Financial Times today that are pretty confident/cocky about the status of videogames as opposed to movies and TV. They're also, I think, misguided if not totally wrong:

"The buzz in Hollywood, which I heard from some Hollywood folks . . . is people are worried whether Iron Man the movie is going to get killed by Grand Theft Auto the game," says the chief executive of Electronic Arts, the world's biggest video game publisher.

"I don't think I've ever heard of that before."

The 48-year-old believes this reversal of fortunes represents a big change rather than a blip: "There is more interest today from Hollywood to make movies out of our games than there is interest in our industry to make games out of their movies. There's a big reset happening now."

As to the first statement, it's undeniably true that people in Hollywood are asking to what extent the "Grand Theft Auto IV" launch is going to impact other media, including the opening of "Iron Man." I'll be writing a story about that as part of a "GTA IV" package coming soon. If it's the first time Riccitiello has heard talk like that, though, he wasn't listening too closely when "Halo 3" came out last year during TV premiere week, to take just one other example that had people in this town buzzing.

More importantly, however, that second statement is just not supported by the facts, I think. Sure, recently we've seen  "Resident Evil," "Doom," "Silent Hill," and there are projects like "Gears of War," "World of Warcraft," and EA's own "Dead Space." And a few big games like "Bioshock" and "Assassin's Creed" are, I hear, on Hollywood's radar.

But let's compare that to just the past six months of games based on movies or TV shows... "Lost," "Jumper," "The Spiderwick Chronicles," "Alvin and the Chipmunks," "The Golden Compass," "Pirates of the Caribbean Online," "Beowulf," "Bee Movie Game," various "High School Musical" games, "The Simpsons," an endless array of "Spider-Man" and "Star Wars" and "Lord of the Rings" games... Need I go on?

Just as illustrative: This summer there will be videogames based on movies like "Prince Caspian," "Kung Fu Panda," "Speed Racer," "Iron Man," "The Incredible Hulk," "Wall*E," "Space Chimps," and "Indiana Jones" (well, a Lego version of it anyway). How many movies based on video games? Ummmm... Zero.

It is true that Hollywood's becoming more and more interested in adapting videogame properties, though it has yet to do so really succesfully. But there's no evidence I can see that videogames are becoming less interested in adapting big Hollywood properties -- even at Riccitiello's own EA, home of "Lord of the Rings," "Harry Potter," "The Simpsons," and the Steven Spielberg deal.

So, something of a change in momentum? Sure. A "big reset?" I don't think so.

"Street Fighter: the Legend of Chun-Li" blog launches

The producers of the "Street Fighter" movie have launched a new website to blog about production, which is ongoing right now in Bangkok. First revelation: it's called "Street Fighter: the Legend of Chun-Li." I knew the movie focused on Chun-Li, but I didn't know that was the name. Maybe everybody knew that and I'm just ignorant.

The first blog entry goes over the casting we already know about, notes that Michael Clarke Duncan stands out a bit on the streets of Bangkok, and provides a little snippet of a storyboard. There's also the promise of a new casting revelation coming soon.

Check it out here.

Update: It looks like the blog has since been taken down. Oh well, hopefully some of you got to see it while it lasted. And hopefully it will be back up for you to enjoy soon. I'll keep the link up in case that happens.

Update 2 (4/10): The site is back. But now it has a different logo for the movie title. Perhaps it got taken down the first time because someone at Capcom or Hyde Park or whatever didn't approve of the original logo. Unfortunately I didn't save the original.

Guest column: Why Hollywood isn't actually pissing all over our favorite games

[Note: Screenwriter Justin Marks, a friend of The Cut Scene, is back with another guest column. This one, cross-posted on GameSetWatch, is about why Hollywood's relationship with the videogame world isn't nearly as dysfuncational as many people think... and why we could see some good movies based on games coming soon.]

I remember when the new STREET FIGHTER movie was first announced.  The internet went ballistic.  And not necessarily in a good way.

On the very same day that someone was green-lighting a reboot of a franchise already believed to bear the mark of Jean-Claude Van Damme, Peter Jackson announced that his adaptation of HALO, a daring game series, was being dropped by the major Hollywood studios.  Boy, these guys just can't get it right.  They dump HALO and give us another STREET FIGHTER movie. Unbelievable.

Well, to quickly answer this criticism in biased terms, STREET FIGHTER isn't your ordinary game adaptation.  It's a gritty, realistic character piece (if I don't say so myself) that just happens to use characters taken from a video game.  All hype aside, it's going to be a very different game-to-movie adaptation and I urge everyone to go see it when it comes out next year.

But I don't want to talk about STREET FIGHTER right now.  It's worth discussing because I genuinely believe the producers on that film got it right, but maybe in another column.  For now I want to address a much larger issue that faces the gaming community... how to deal with this perception that Hollywood is pissing all over our favorite properties.

The relationship between games and movies is a tough one.  I've seen it firsthand.  As a lifelong gamer who was fortunate enough to find a corner in the screenwriting community, I've often straddled both sides of this fence.

For starters, and I hate to say this, but the fanboys used to be right.  There was a time when the movie business just didn't get video games.  No one had yet grown up on them. Filmmakers saw games as inane and often shallow experiences that didn't deserve serious treatment.  Thinking back to DOUBLE DRAGON or SUPER MARIO BROTHERS (shudder), it's not hard to see what the problem was.  The users of these games were pre-adolescent children (or teenagers who acted like them), so why should we make a serious movie for them?

But things have gotten better over the years.  A lot better.  Contrary to the message-board-driven fantasy that "Hollywood is screwing up my childhood," this mystical "Hollywood" is actually a real place, filled with executives and creative people who are now young enough to have grown up during the Golden Age of Nintendo.  I know this because I work with these people every day and play with them on Xbox Live every night.  I call it the Nerd Hollywood.  They're genuinely smart people.  And they genuinely want to make good movies.

For an analogy, think about the state of comic book movies a little more than ten years ago.  Before BLADE came out, nobody believed that comic books could be taken seriously.  Now we have franchises like X-MEN and BATMAN BEGINS.  That's because the people making those movies grew up on comics and knew they should be considered an adult medium.  The new generation had taken over.

And that's what's ready to happen in the world of game-to-film adaptations.  I'm not saying you should expect MARIO BEGINS in theaters anytime soon, but the time is upon us for some hot and heavy game movies.

And yet here's the rub.  The gaming world isn't holding up its end of the bargain.  Fans (and publishers, to some extent) are still resisting Hollywood with territorial reluctance, thinking that if they give away a game's rights to a studio, Hollywood will inevitably "piss all over our childhood."  Part of this is because there's been a past pattern.  That's fair.  But it's also because the game community fundamentally believes filmmakers just don't understand why games are so great, and if they would only directly and literally translate a game to film, it would succeed beyond all expectations.

Frankly, in the case of most games, this is just not true.  We all need to take a long look in the mirror and realize that there are very few mainstream game franchises that could stand next to the best comics of the 1980's, or the best movies ever.  And yes, SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS and PORTAL are hands-down better than most anything out there, but no one is playing those games.  What is the mainstream audience playing? HALO 3.

So let's talk about HALO.

First of all, I love the HALO franchise.  Master Chief's action figure is sitting on my desk right now as I type.  For any doubters out there, simply click here. HALO is the gold standard for our community.  Ethereal, epic, with great setpieces and some wonderful aesthetics.  We should all be so lucky as to make a game as good as that.

Master Chief has been trying to make it to the big screen for a few years now.  I've read the scripts. Some of them aren't bad.  But Hollywood, even Nerd Hollywood, has failed to green-light this film.  And it's not like they're throwing a bunch of hacks at it.  We're talking about Peter Jackson.  He's no slouch.  If they won't make HALO with Peter Jackson producing, clearly Hollywood is just out of touch with what the world wants, right?

Think of how great a HALO movie would be if they made it exactly like the game was (which is part of the deal Bungie has fought for).  Imagine showing up to the theater on Friday night to see the first showing.  Fade in.  Outer space.  A giant star cruiser sails into frame, dropping from it a flying convoy that descends into an alien planet's outer atmosphere.  We touch down in a foreign world and the door slams open.  Badass space marines jump out, pulse rifles locked, cocked, and ready to rock.  They engage in some funny banter, then march into a futuristic complex built by a community that's since disappeared.  After a few suspenseful minutes of "what the hell happened here?", the creatures start appearing.  Nasty aliens, who don't take no for an answer, begin to tear the space marines apart.  A wild gunfight ensues.

Sounds like a pretty cool movie, right?

That's because it already was a movie.  I just described the opening hour of James Cameron's ALIENS.

Ready for some heresy?  As great a game as HALO is, and as much as it deserves to be a true benchmark for this industry's success, when you take away the awesome gameplay and reduce it to character and story, we've really seen it before.  Don't start screaming on the message boards yet.  Take a long, hard look, because this is true of a lot of popular games out there.  On a story level, they often take place in familiar worlds and lack the character work (read: compelling enough to make a movie star want to be in the movie) that would elevate them above the level of a good genre film.

Peter Jackson probably has a bold vision for HALO, but he's going to have to do some bold-re-envisioning to make it work.  The standards that make a good game (complex sci-fi world, silent hero, more emphasis on repetitive action) are not the same standards that make a good movie.  Neither standard is inherently better or worse --- they're just different.  And that means a film adaptation can't just be a carbon copy of its source material.  It has to be inspired, sometimes with new ideas.  To inject these new ideas, the filmmakers risk pissing off fans who want the movie to be exactly what the game was.  And thus begins message board backlash.  Hence the Catch-22.

Why does the movie have to reach more than just the gamer audience? Because movies cost an awful lot of money to make.  HALO alone would cost roughly $200 million.  To gain its gross back, you'd have to generate about half a billion dollars' worth of revenue.  HALO 3, the game, made $170 million in 24 hours.  Break that down and it comes to roughly 2.8 million rabid fans lining up to buy it.  Multiply 2.8 million fans by the average cost of a movie ticket, 10 dollars, and you have an opening weekend of $28 million.  Let's even be generous and say half those guys brought a date.  $40 million opening weekend.  Spend $200 million dollars on that and you're looking at one of the biggest flops since ISHTAR.  People lose jobs.  Game over.

If HALO were to be a success --- and Peter Jackson's a smart guy, he knows this --- it's got to be more than a genre film. It's got to appeal to a much bigger audience than just us hardcore gamers.  Girls have got to see it.  Our parents have got to see it. They've got to see it twice.  And take the whole family.

So how do we solve this problem?   

We've got to look at adaptations as what they are... an opportunity to adjust the source material to suit it to a new medium.  A chance to take a great game and make it into a great movie.  That means as a game community, we've got to be open to new ideas being applied to properties that we consider perfect as-is.  And as a film community, we've got to be willing to take more risks.  To believe that a game should be considered art, and that a movie should honor that. 

A new generation of filmmakers is emerging, and this generation takes the medium seriously enough to realize all game adaptations don't deserve to be treated like ALONE IN THE DARK.  But it takes time.  And patience.  And maybe the corpses of a few experiments gone wrong.  So as a young filmmaker speaking to the very gamer population that birthed him, I say please hold on.  The best is yet to come, and we all need to be patient because the right formula isn't as obvious as we would like to think.

And hey, I may be biased, but I think the new STREET FIGHTER movie is the right start.  Maybe in a future column we can talk about other qualities I believe would make for a good game-to-film adaptation.  For now, just consider me a self-promotional jerk.

Legend of Zelda movie trailer, Super Smash Bros. movie casting

IGN went all out and then some for April Fools, making a trailer for the non-existent "Legend of Zelda" movie that looks  like it could be a real trailer for a tentpole film. It's paced like one, has similar graphics, and the same kind of shots, music, voiceover, etc. Sure, the effects aren't quite up to par, the makeup on Ganon isn't great, and the guy playing Link is kinda ugly, but it's still really impressive. I particularly love how they integrated so many details from the game, like spin attacks and a quiet moment with the horse.

Legend of Zelda Movie Trailer
Uploaded by GenerationDs

Also amusing on this April Fool's Day, blog The Minus World has "cast" a "Super Smash Bros. Brawl" movie. James Gandolfini as Mario, Ryan Seacrest as the Pokemon trainer, Artie Lang as Wario. Particularly inspired (and yes, these are kind of mean): Rosie O'Donnell as Bowser, Larry Wachowski as Zelda/Sheik, and my favorite, Richard Simmons as Diddy Kong. Take a look.

"Dead Space: the Event"... Film Roman's president on the upcoming animated movie based on EA's new game

As most Cut Scene readers probably know already, Starz Media recently signed a pretty unique deal with EA to produce an animated TV/direct-to-dvd film tied into this fall's new sci-fi/horror game "Dead Space." We've seen lots of movies based on videogames before, of course, but usually they come out after the game's a hit. This is the first I know of that is being done "on spec" in order to be released along with the game. Starz is basically banking that EA really does have a hit franchise on its hands.

Since this deal is right where The Cut Scene lives (not physically, but philosophically -- you know what I mean), I figured you would all want to know more about it. So I got on the phone with Scott Greenberg, president of Starz-owned Film Roman, which is producing the "Dead Space" movie, to talk more about it:

The Cut Scene: How did this deal come about? Who approached who? Why did you find it interesting?

Scott Greenberg:  It got started a little over two years ago when I reached out to EA. We were looking for new sources of ideas. I believe and we at Film Roman felt that videogames -- the way comic books have become a source of stories in the past years -- games have the same influence. They're another great source to tap into.

But it had to be the right way to do it. I worked closely with two guys in EA's business affairs group. We got to know the different games. We had to find right product to start off. They want to get the motor going on original IP. They are the best at games we feel we're the best at animation. So we figured it would be a good match.

"Dead Space" is something they told us about from the get go. We started developing a film with them over a year ago as a prequel. I would go with them to every studio and meet people, see what games they have. Some don’t make sense as movies. There are a couple of others we have in development more as series for kids.

We really wanted to figure out how to develop together. They do their story and we do ours. Somebody have great experience playing game and also a great experience watching it for  more background. There will be enough links so gamers can enjoy it, but at the same time the film stands alone if you don't play the games. 

We had time to get to know each other and built trust. "Dead Space" is a game that's at the right place with the timing and we just worked closely to start develop script with their characters. It's a great one to launch off of. Then we'll do more hopefully

TCS: How did you come up with the story for the film? How much were they involved with it?

SG: They have a very detailed bible. It's basically "'Alien' meets 'Doom' in space." To get there, though, there's a whole mythology they built behind it. In the game there are planets with  markings that unleash holy hell. We said, "Is there a parallel story?" There was some mutual brainstorming. We said it would be really interesting to tell a prequel story. Where the movie ends, the game picks right up.

We found a bunch of writers who they met and interviewed. Together we picked Jimmy Palmiotti, who writes comic books. As we started doing our story, the development of the game was always evolving. That’s cool for us. As they're producing sound effects we're using stuff they have. We have their world and their designs. That's a huge jump start to take their assets. We had a meeting two weeks ago with their producer and our director going over some scripts storyboards.

On the marketing side, these guys are the best marketers out there. They're working closely with our sales people. This will be an event. Like a motion picture release. They're building a brand and we're coordinating that as we approach TV partners in the U.S. and worldwide. It will be a tie-in to the release of game. The whole thing will come out like a big "Dead Space" event. That’s exciting to me because it provides exposure for both sides. We'll help drive game sales and they'll help drive TV and  homevideo.

TCS: How will the windows work? What will the timing be from the TV debut to homevideo, or vice-versa?

SG: That's still being worked out. The goal right now is to release it on homevideo day-and-date with the game around Halloween. We'd premiere the movie on TV in mid-late September or early October. So it would be a short window. But it depends on the needs and wants of our partners. That's being worked out right now.

TCS: What would the rating be, since the game looks like it will be an M?

SG: On DVD we might be able to push it (to an R). The TV version has to be able to play in prime time cable.

TCS: Will the film be CGI ?

SG: There will be CG backgrounds. CG vehicles and CG props from the games. So the world is CG, they we are animating the characters and other things we insert in 2-D.

TCS: Is Starz fully financing the film? Is EA involved with that at all?

SG: I don’t want to comment on the deal terms. But it's a beneficial relationship for everybody.

TCS: Will you use the same voice actors as the game?

SG: Yes. And we are involved in the voice casting.

TCS: Might you sell the game and movie together as one package?

SG: Possibly. Everything’s on the table. Everybody is looking for the best way to market this.  Co-packaging is a possibility, but nothing is planned as of yet.

TCS: What's your overall goal for your relationship with EA?

SG: I want to do a lot of things with them. I hope this is the first of many. In my view, it's a long term relationship. I hope we can do more event movies. We're talking about animated series for kids. This could also move into the live action space for other parts of Starz. EA has a mandate to build properties and expand into the traditional entertainment world. We think it's smart to be in that space and we want to be there with them.

But we're not in business with them to sell games. We're not a marketing company for them. We're here to make great entertainment of our own.

[Interview edited for length, grammar, etc.]

Bioshock MMO, mobile, or movie; Civilization MMO; everything online... Take-Two muses

As part of its presentation to analysts today, Take-Two Interactive presented a few "potential untapped opprtunities" in markets it hasn't yet entered, including MMO's and mobile, as well as licensing to "traditional" media or, I assume, producing itself.

On a slide that was part of its presentation, which I copied above, it even named some potential names, noting that "Bioshock" and "Civilization" could both make great MMOs and that "Bioshock" and "Carnival Games" could work as mobile games.

These are only possiblities, of course, and not reason for fanboys to start clearing space on their hard drives or buying a powerful new phone. Given the way analyst presentations work, I take it as more Take-Two demonstrating to those in attendance that it can move into these markets if/when it is ready, because it has properties that would translate well. It's not a hint that the "Bioshock" MMO is actually in development.

As for the "Bioshock" movie, that should be a big "duh" to Cut Scene readers. As I wrote last month, "Take-Two has been bombarded with  requests from producers and studios interested in obtaining the rights, agents interested in representing them, etc." The only question is which big name is going to get the rights. And whether Take-Two will try to get commercially/creatively involved itself, possibly investing its own money.

Also of note: Executive Chairman Strauss Zelnick said that online play is becoming increasingly important. "Not all of our games have been multi-player," he noted. "Going forward, the bulk of them will be."

My immediate thought? I can't wait to play "Bioshock 2" online multi-player next year. I want to be the Big Daddy.

Uwe Boll puts Spielberg in his place

Is Uwe Boll the gift that keeps on giving to journalists or what?

The infamously awful director of videogame-based movies like "Bloodrayne," "Alone in the Dark," and most recently "In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale," has apparently scheduled his new film, "Postal," to open against "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" on May 23. And horror website Bloody Disgusting quotes him in an e-mail boasting he's going to take down that over-the-hill hack Spielberg:

On the Indiana Jones weekend - May 23 - we will go out and destroy Indiana Jones in the Box Office! We all know that Harrison Ford is older as my grandpa and his time is up - would Michael Moore say! ... Spielberg gets sloppy. We saw that with War of the Worlds (why the fuck the older brother survived?) and also in parts of Jaws, E.T., Munich etc.! My performance in Postal as 'Nazi Theme Park Owner' outperforms easily Ben Kingsley in Schindler's List!

No official response yet from Spielberg, who is most likely furiously begging Paramount to reschedule his movie, or possibly just give up and release it directly to DVD.

For those not familiar, "Postal" and its better known sequel are ultra-violent PC games about an anonymous guy who, basically, "goes postal." They were published by obscure (possibly no longer around) companies Whiptail Interactive and Ripcord Games, which perhaps explains how Boll got the rights, since no legitimate videogame publisher would deal with him anymore, I assume. Here's the amazing description of the movie, which sounds very socially relevant, that Bloody Disgusting got:

Living on Social Security and unemployed, DUDE desperately seeks employment, but instead finds a life of violent action and adventure when he teams up with his UNCLE DAVE, a financially strapped cult leader, in an effort to rip off an amusement park, only to find that the Taliban are trying the same heist simultaneously.

Worth noting: The lifetime domestic gross for all of Uwe Boll's videogame adaptations, according to Box Office Mojo, is about $23 million. I have a feeling that's about what Paramount and Spielberg are aiming for on their opening Saturday with the new Indiana Jones.

Street Fighter movie casting

Variety has the exclusive scoop:

Chun-Li: "Smallville's" Kristin Kreuk (right)

Balrog: Michael Clarke Duncan

Nash: Chris Klein

Gen: Rick Yune

Still waiting for the perfect Bison in the movie, which focuses on Chun-Li and starts production next month. Read all the details here.

Bioshock: the Movie... where is it?

It seems that most every game most every successful video game gets a chance to be turned into a video game, regardless of whether it even has a coherent story.

Which has naturally led everyone to ask: What's up with Bioshock? Not only was it one of the best selling original games of last year, it was critically acclaimed, with specific mention made by many of its cinematic setting, characters, music, and, to a lesser extent, story.

Joystiq reported last month that one production company has been discussing a movie adaptation with "Bioshock" publisher Take 2. But trust me, they're far from the only ones.

From what I hear, you'd be hard pressed to find a production company, studio, or agency with at least one videogame savvy employee that isn't interested in "Bioshock." Take 2 has been bombarded with  requests from producers and studios interested in obtaining the rights, agents interested in representing them, etc.

But so far they're playing it tight to the vest. While Take 2 hasn't closed the door, it isn't ready to make a deal yet. Are they waiting for the right offer? Hoping to parlay it into some bigger alliance with an agency or studio? We'll have to wait and find out. But the lack of a "Bioshock" movie deal certainly isn't for want of Hollywood trying.

Gears of War 2... Who cares if it has been "announced?"

It's time for the video game industry to get over its obsession with titles being officially "announced."

Let's get real. Barring global catastrophe, there is going to be a "Gears of War 2." I know people who have seen levels being built for the game. People who work at Microsoft have casually referred to a "Gears" sequel in conversations with me as if it's obvious and not a big deal. But of course we all know it's coming. What are the odds that a multi-million selling action title published by a console manufacturer as an exclusive wouldn't get a sequel? About the same as Mike Gravel sweeping the primary elections today.

Nonetheless, videogame websites and blogs are abuzz today because the latest issue of GamePro teases a "Gears of War 2" story on the cover. "'Gears of War 2' officially confirmed?" is the urgent question in GameSpot's "rumor patrol." Then everyone followed up with "breaking news" follow-ups like this one on GamesIndustry: "Gears of War 2 announcement "complete nonsense.'"

Treating an official announcement as "news" is just another way that the gaming press allows publishers and publicists to control them. Imagine if political reporters refused to say last year that any of the candidates were running until they made their official announcement speech? Or if TV reporters treated it as a big deal when ABC announces that "Grey's Anatomy" will be back next fall. It's ridiculous, so why do we tolerate it in the videogame world?

The working assumption in every story should be that "Gears of War 2" is in the works. It's a fact and should be reported as such. If and when Epic/Microsoft shares details about the game, then sure, that's interesting. And maybe that'll happen as soon as GDC in two weeks. But someone official saying the game is coming, or saying they haven't made any announcements yet, is not news. If game journalists and players want to incentivize publishers to stop treating us like idiots, we should completely ignore the existence or non-existence of an "announcement."

(Oh, and if you're wondering when "Gears 2" will come out, consider this fact: When New Line got the rights to make "Gears of War" movie, producers said they are aiming for a summer 2009 release. Who knows if that will happen given the writers' strike and other development issues, but my guess is they'd love to come out the same year as the game sequel.)

The Grand Theft Auto movie that almost was

With the release of "Grand Theft Auto IV" coming up -- and, let's be honest, my wanting to start this blog off with a bang -- I thought it was worth letting readers know about a major story in the intersection of Hollywood and videogames, arguably the biggest ever, that almost happened last spring.

For years, everyone in Hollywood has wanted to get their hands on "Grand Theft Auto." Big name producers and senior execs at major studios all did their best to convince Rockstar to give up the film rights to their franchise. But the brothers Houser were reluctant, and who can blame them? "Grand Theft Auto" is a huge cash cow and has a bigger profile in the young male demo than most TV shows and movies. And God knows there have been a lot of awful videogame-based movies that hurt the property more than they helped. So, even amongst those able to navigate the Rockstar bureaucracy and talk to the right people, the answer was always "no."

But last year, something changed. By the spring, a deal was virtually in place with one of the six major studios to start developing a "Grand Theft Auto" movie. Eminem was quite possibly going to star.

I can't be sure of the reasons why Rockstar was finally open to a movie deal, though I suspect it had to do with the new management at parent company Take 2. This was soon after the board was ousted following a financial scandal. The new (and current) chairman, Strauss Zelnick, has significant ties to the traditional media industry given his previous posts as CEO of BMG music and president of 20th Century Fox.

How close was this deal to happening? Reporters at Variety (and, I have since learned, other publications) were preparing their stories based on conversations with the studio in question. Internally at Take 2, people were talking about it as a done deal. Then at the last minute, it all fell apart. I'm told Take 2 couldn't finalize terms with the studio, though I'm not sure if it was a purely financial issue or if, in the end, the publisher got cold feet about giving away rights to its baby.

Who knows if Rockstar will ever be willing to make a movie deal again. But for those who think that in principle the publisher would never be interested, last year's events prove them wrong. Perhaps one day it'll happen. Maybe even before the "Halo" film.

Update (2/4/08, 4:25 PM): Someone from Rockstar pinged me with this statement, attributed to VP/co-founder Dan Houser, that they have been giving to other journalists who apparently called to ask about the above story. It doesn't really contract my post since, as I said, no deal was ever in place. But I certainly stand behind my reporting that it came awful close.

Rockstar was not involved in this project in any shape or form nor is it something that we're currently interested in.  There was no GTA movie in the works as far as Rockstar is concerned. Some movie producers were trying to put something together to entice us to make a movie, as studios and production teams frequently have done in the past. This proposal was no more interesting than the numerous others we receive. We never entertained proceeding with the project.