Ken Levine killed BioShock film due to Watchmen's failure - Polidicks

[url]http://www.destructoid.com/ken-levine-killed-bioshock-film-due-to-watchmen-s-failure-248481.phtml[/url] [quote]Ken Levine has come out about the BioShock film, first announced in 2008 with Pirates of Caribbean director Gore Verbinski attached, admitting to personally cancelling the film. After the poor box office reception to The Watchmen, Universal got cold feet about funding a $200 million R-rated BioShock adaptation. Universal gave the project two options: Ditch the R-rating or accept a budget of $80 mil. Verbinski wasn't happy with either and soon left the project.[/quote]

better than a shitty film to add to the list of shitty video game adaptations

Thank god. Video game movies are always terrible.

I can certainly understand canning the movie when you lose the director and over half of your budget. I wasn't aware Watchmen did so poorly though, it was a great movie.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;39888478]I can certainly understand canning the movie when you lose the director and over half of your budget. I wasn't aware Watchmen did so poorly though, it was a great movie.[/QUOTE] "Poorly" in a movie studios mind is different than ours. If it makes back its money and makes a couple dozen million, it's a poorly received movie. Unless a blockbuster makers several hundreds of millions in revenue, it's considered a bomb. Movie studios are weird with their terminology. [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] Like. Watchman had a 130 million dollar budget and made 190 million, not counting dvd and bluray.

I almost thought he meant the movie based off the Watchmen graphic novel, 'cause that movie was the shit.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39888516]"Poorly" in a movie studios mind is different than ours. If it makes back its money and makes a couple dozen million, it's a poorly received movie. Unless a blockbuster makers several hundreds of millions in revenue, it's considered a bomb. Movie studios are weird with their terminology. [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] Like. Watchman had a 130 million dollar budget and made 190 million, not counting dvd and bluray.[/QUOTE] I knew that, I had just never seen any box office so I figured that it did pretty well financially based on how good it was.

I thought Watchmen was quite a success? Oh well, never watched it anyway. Just remember everyone talking about it back in the day.

To put it into prospective. Watchman had one of the highest grossing opening nights EVER, and they still consider it a failure. [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TehMentos;39888528]I thought Watchmen was quite a success? Oh well, never watched it anyway. Just remember everyone talking about it back in the day.[/QUOTE] I guess they didn't want to fund a "serious" movie unless it could make eighty times its budget. Easier to just put your money on summer shlock people will take their kids to see, than a 3 hour, r rated movie with themes that require intellect to grasp.

[QUOTE=Zakkin;39888526]I almost thought he meant the movie based off the Watchmen graphic novel, 'cause that movie was the shit.[/QUOTE] That is what he meant.

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39888516]Movie studios are weird with their terminology.[/QUOTE] Traditionally the movies industry has one of the highest profit margins of nearly any business model in the world. If it doesn't make way more than budget in box office it failed to be a success within the context of the movie industry. I thought Watchman was a fantastic movie though.

I saw "Ken Levine Killed" and got kinda scared.

[quote]Ditch the R-rating or accept a budget of $80 mil. Verbinski wasn't happy with either and soon left the project.[/quote] "Only 80 million, nah that won't do" What. Some of the greatest movies ever made were done with a lot less. I'm going to assume he was going to rely on CGI to make the movie with some half-assed script thrown in like every other VG adaptation, in which case I'm glad it never made it into production

[QUOTE=AlphaGunman;39888463]Thank god. Video game movies are always terrible.[/QUOTE] Mortal kombat movie was pretty good

[QUOTE=demoguy08;39888858]"Only 80 million, nah that won't do" What. Some of the greatest movies ever made were done with a lot less. I'm going to assume he was going to rely on CGI to make the movie with some half-assed script thrown in like every other VG adaptation, in which case I'm glad it never made it into production[/QUOTE] Surely CGI is cheaper and a higher budget would have meant elaborate sets and effects?

[QUOTE=demoguy08;39888858]"Only 80 million, nah that won't do" What. Some of the greatest movies ever made were done with a lot less. I'm going to assume he was going to rely on CGI to make the movie with some half-assed script thrown in like every other VG adaptation, in which case I'm glad it never made it into production[/QUOTE] As far as I know, District 9 had a budget of $33 mil. And that was great.

[QUOTE=Citizen Insane;39889201]As far as I know, District 9 had a budget of $33 mil. And that was great.[/QUOTE] I really hated the camera work.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;39888858]"Only 80 million, nah that won't do" What. Some of the greatest movies ever made were done with a lot less. I'm going to assume he was going to rely on CGI to make the movie with some half-assed script thrown in like every other VG adaptation, in which case I'm glad it never made it into production[/QUOTE] I imagine that the set work and special effects would cost a lot.

[QUOTE=Drasnus;39889167]Surely CGI is cheaper and a higher budget would have meant elaborate sets and effects?[/QUOTE] CGI done well isn't cheap, as far as I know. Meanwhile good location scouting and use of natural environments (an abandoned Victorian-style factory and some lighting could easily make for perfect Rapture-like scenery) is nearly free.

Along with costumes and dressing the sets to fit the period.

quoting cracked on Watchmen CGI, [quote]$17 million went towards the realization of Dr. Manhattan. The motion-capture footage of Billy Crudup wearing space jammies was processed and finessed by squads of animators. Brilliant minds set to massaging light scatter algorithms and miniaturizing millions of tiny atomic reactions just under his translucent blue skin. And yes, it's true: There were people whose job it was to ensure Dr. Manhattans dick had proper jiggle physics. When one of your stars is a Giant Blue Superhero who is both figuratively and literally the world's biggest swinging dick, you'd better make sure that shit swings correctly. Especially when all 40-feet of it will be wagging in the breeze up on IMAX screens.[/quote]

Yeah, but still, 80 million dollars. Blade Runner was done for 30 and it has a ton of (good looking) special effects, costumes, sets, you-name-it.

[QUOTE=Citizen Insane;39889201]As far as I know, District 9 had a budget of $33 mil. And that was great.[/QUOTE] I wish they made part II

A movie needs to double its budget in order to be considered financially viable for any kind of follow up / copycat movie- this is not the case for Watchmen

I loved watchmen, that was a good movie.

What would the best film adaptation of a videogame be?

[QUOTE=Drasnus;39889167]Surely CGI is cheaper and a higher budget would have meant elaborate sets and effects?[/QUOTE] CGI is very expensive. It's just usually they don't get paid properly, many CGI houses are in bankruptcy I recently read. [editline]12th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=prooboo;39889879]What would the best film adaptation of a videogame be?[/QUOTE] hitman :v:

[QUOTE=demoguy08;39889592]Yeah, but still, 80 million dollars. Blade Runner was done for 30 and it has a ton of (good looking) special effects, costumes, sets, you-name-it.[/QUOTE] Yeah but have you taken into account inflation?

[QUOTE=prooboo;39889879]What would the best film adaptation of a videogame be?[/QUOTE] Prince of Persia was dumb, but at least enjoyable. Other than that, I really can't think of any I liked at all.

This [I]could[/I] have been worked, though. R rating and Gore Verbinski plus Ken Levine's involvement? It certainly had the potential to be good. Oh well.