Sony recently got the rights to Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed, Splinter Cell, and Ghost Recon, as well as already having the rights to Uncharted and inFamous. There is also a Mass Effect movie on the way. If any of these are hits, you can be sure we'll see Call of Duty, Halo, and Grand Theft Auto films. Do you think any of these movies can break out and start the next Hollywood trend?

If they keep the budgets under control, and hire talented people to do them, I say yes. Prince of Persia made over 90 million, which would have been fine if the budget wasn't $200M+. The one thing they need to do is actually the video game, not just use the setting. Assassin's Creed 2 has a movie worthy coming of age/revenge storyline, concluding with a climatic battle against the Pope. Who wouldn't see that? Adapt that directly on screen, with a budget under $100M, and you have a hit. Same thing with Uncharted.

Assassin's Creed - $125M
Uncharted - $140M
Mass Effect - $45M - seems to be going with an original storyline, which will likely result in a bomb
Splinter Cell - $75m
Ghost Recon - $60M

Most respected directors grew up when video games couldn't really tell a good story. Eventually some younger directors, who have actually played Uncharted, are gonna step up and make a great one. It has to happen eventually. No slump can last forever. Even the Cubs will win a series eventually.

The David O. Russell Uncharted would have gotten some respect, but he planned to tell a completely different story. That's been the problem with video game movies so far.

And they need the budget. Assassins Creed for $100m? That's exactly what studios have been doing, making movies based on games look cheap (with some exceptions).

Mass Effect is actually following the games as they are casting Shepard. At least that was the report a couple of weeks ago.
This is the best link I can get
http://www.legendary.com/blog/sdcc-film ... -answered/
I read another article that confirmed that somewhere.

Assassin's Creed doesn't need a lot of CGI. Shooting on location in Italy would be expensive though. It'd be difficult to replicate those cities.

I think $200M is way too much for a wildcard project. And casting Jake Gylenhaal, someone who is not at all popular with people who play games? Very dumb decision.

Paul Greengrass/Matt Damon for Splinter Cell?

Like you know who is popular with the gaming crowd... Changing the star would not have done wonders. Also, the movie first and foremost needs to appeal to the wider crowd. A very successful game gets played perhaps by two million people (unless you're Call of Duty), a very successful movie gets seen by tens of millions (both domestic numbers).


They are definitely not casting Shepard. First you need a director and a script and then a greenlit.

Well I meant they would be going with Shepard, I know they are no where near to actually casting him. They may have a script if you believe the above link, and it sounds like they are moving forward. I imagine they will announce a director by the end of the year.

When the hell will they make Halo? It's the only video game adaptation that I see that is a $150+ million candidate.

It's amazing how successful the Resident Evil franchise has become, though, amidst all the video game adaptations disappointments.

I mean the fifth RE film is likely breaking $300 million worldwide!

Huh? Why is Jake Gyllenhaal unpopular with people who play games?

I think Mass Effect could make 150 million, as long as they followed the game.

Which would barely be enough for the budget they would need to do it right (over $150m). With international grosses it maybe would have broken even or made a small profit.

Well you have to consider its OS numbers. It could make 400-500 OS if done right. It is in rewrite hell right now, so it is hard to say what will happen with it.

Edit my post...

Should edit it so say could :p I still think there is a good chance it will get made.

You're really gonna make me say it? Brokeback Mountain, duh. He'll always be known as a gay cowboy in those circles.

And the funny thing is, if Jake Gylenhaal was actually gay, or even a gay cowboy, nobody would care. Like Zach Quinto came out, but that isn't gonna stop anyone from seeing Star Trek. There's just something very polarizing about Brokeback.

...like Heath Ledger?

Until he died, yeah... Remember the outrage over his casting? He had Candy, Cassanova, and I'm Not There in between Brokeback and Dark Knight. And there's also 10 Things I Hate About You to consider...

But Heath would have been a way better Prince, if that is what you're suggesting.

I remember a lot of "Heath is too young." I remember absolutely nothing along the lines of, "OMG, he played a gay cowboy!"

Brokeback Mountain was six years ago. People really don't care. Persia bombed because it didn't look interesting. Has nothing to do with Gyllenhaal.

Wow so all videogamers are homophobic when it comes to movies except to SCI Films starring actual gay guys.

I play a lot of video games, and brokeback mountain hardly comes to mind when I think of Jake Gyllenhaal. It would be Zodiac, Jarhead or Donnie Darko first and foremost, and now of course Source Code. He's much smaller which is the only thing that was odd about his casting in POP, and while I found him miscast as well, he was easily the best part about the film.

I'm not sure of the "circles" your hanging out in but the under 10 crowd that played POP probably have no idea what Brokeback Mountain even is.

Yes agreed I too don't consider JG as a good cast for POP but saying that the film bombed because of him is simply not true and suggesting that he played a gay guy in Brokeback Mountain means he can't do anything else in his entire career without being referred to that is terrible.

BTW I am not even sure that any video game movies that are being played recently can be as good, maybe they can try for a Quake movie, I know that would not be ideal in terms of story but something new without the story being known to the audience might do well IMO.

Well, do you think you'll see a lot of violent video game players at a Lady Gaga concert? No, never. It isn't because her music is bad, but because she forces a message down everyones throats.

Even though Brokeback didn't do that, people still championed it like crazy, and made it into more than a movie. A legend, Mr Wayne.

Video game fans are a fickle crowd. They derailed the Uncharted movie because their guy, Nathan Fillion, didn't get the job.

But there is nothing I can say to prove my point. Suggesting discrimination still exists apparently means you're a bigot. Let us all just live in Herman Cain's bubble, where everybody loves everybody no matter how they behave.

Final statement - Prince of Persia with an unknown lead, or better yet a real star, makes at least $400M worldwide.

I wanna see a Heavy Rain movie. Seeing a game movie that isn't just about killing everybody you see would help the cause a lot.

More people complained about him not looking the part. If they had cast Elijah Wood as him it would failed just as bad. The movie was also horrible which sure didn't help it make money. You can't get a diamond out of a pile of shit.

The hell? No, they didn't. They railed against Russell's Uncharted because he was turning an Indiana Jones rip-off into a family drama. They were mad it'd be nothing like the game.

How many gamers do you know, exactly?



Would this version of the movie look remotely interesting? Because the released version sure didn't, lead be damned.

Seriously, most gamers I know, know how terrible movie adaptations of games are and never put much stock in them. But most are usually big movie fans in general. I've yet to meet a Fickle gamer who cares about a movie version, other than "It looks cool" Or "It'll probably suck"

Fallout would probably be a good basis for a video game, no real face of the series and that genre has been done a few times before, especially New Vegas.

Fallout is perfect because they could do what ever they wanted with it. I would be up for a Fallout movie.