Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I can see 10 years ago how they would be iffy with CG or possibly a live action movie with inferior special affects, but why do they still insist on keeping this excuse to print money from finalizing? Have they ever given a reason why they havent ok'd it yet. Im sure they could get some top studios interested in their IP. Just looking at the movies of today, like ironman for cg, or batman for well done special affects, what exactly is their concern?

Orock wrote:I can see 10 years ago how they would be iffy with CG or possibly a live action movie with inferior special affects, but why do they still insist on keeping this excuse to print money from finalizing? Have they ever given a reason why they havent ok'd it yet. Im sure they could get some top studios interested in their IP. Just looking at the movies of today, like ironman for cg, or batman for well done special affects, what exactly is their concern?

Have you ever seen Dungeons and Dragons the Movie?

If done correctly, a 40K movie would rock.

But what if it were not done correctly? GW and the producers could lose money.

Furthermore, from what I have heard from the Chairman of the Board, it is GW's belief you get more money from producing a videogame rather then doing a movie. It is a safer, less expensive investment that brings more profit.

Look at the Harry Potter series....they are making millions, and yet have cut parts due to keeping costs down. Greed eventually would hurt the franchise.

Orock wrote:I can see 10 years ago how they would be iffy with CG or possibly a live action movie with inferior special affects, but why do they still insist on keeping this excuse to print money from finalizing? Have they ever given a reason why they havent ok'd it yet. Im sure they could get some top studios interested in their IP. Just looking at the movies of today, like ironman for cg, or batman for well done special affects, what exactly is their concern?

Movies are expensive. Even if it's pure CG, it's still vastly more money than GW could ever come up with on their own to make one, and the money you can get to finance a film always comes with strings attached. There's also the fact that GW is a gaming company, not a film studio, and so everything from script-writing on up would have to be farmed out to outsiders.

GW is a big fish in a very small pond. In terms of movies, they're so small as to be non-existent and while their might be studios out there interested in the I.P. that doesn't mean they have any interest in abiding by GW's wishes about what to do with it. Just think of whatever cinematic licensed abomination comes to mind. You have to have some real pull in order to have any influence whatsoever on what's done with a story after a studio pays for the rights to use it.

General Hobbs wrote:Look at the Harry Potter series....they are making millions, and yet have cut parts due to keeping costs down. Greed eventually would hurt the franchise.

Actually it's got nothing to do with costs, and more about the fact that including everything from the books would mean require a couple dozen movies, and spending the next thirty or so years doing nothing but Harry Potter is probably something no one involved with the project wants to do.

Unfortunately a 40k movie would be quite expensive and appeal mostly to the 40k crowd, who would just as readily buy a video game, or a new codex. Movie tickets aren't expensive and unless it is a super-awesome movie not too many outside of the 40k or gamer crowd would go to it.

General Hobbs wrote:Look at the Harry Potter series....they are making millions, and yet have cut parts due to keeping costs down.

They also cut parts because novels are long and movies are not. Think of how cut down the Lord of the Rings was - all films added together still take 11 hours to watch back-to-back.

GW doesn't need a reason not to do a 40K movie - it wouldn't sell and it would be a huge waste of money. In a perfect world they'd do an animated movie ala cutscenes from Dawn of War, but that'll never happen.

BYE

The same could almost be said for Starship Troopers ph34r. Marketting and presentation is key.

Actually no one knows why Starship Troopers has 2 sequels. It's probably a quantum physics rounding error.

BYE

I actually asked Jervis this at Games Day 2002.

He said GW actually had 4 or 5 hours of a CGI version of Bloodquest in their hands but were not going to release it.

This is because they hate us. They hate us all with the burning hate of a thousands suns and want us to suffer.

This is also why the Squats did not get a codex.

Also because the Blood Quest movie is about 8 thousand years old, and looks worse than the most pathetic of today's in-game computer graphics.

BYE

Proof or it's lies.

Animation would be the key. Battletech had its cartoon series, 40K needs one. Prior mistakes could be learned from, there is no reason this could not be got right.

The trouble with a cartoon series is that western marketing aims them far too young for the 40K audience. So you need a more animeesque style. Likely a CGI, inked hybrid production.

The main problem with a 40k movie is that so much of GW's IP is horribly derivative.

I'm not saying its not cool, or that I don't like it - I do.

BUT Any film critic would do the following with 40k protagonists:

Orks - oh, well they're standard green BEM's
Eldar - ELVES IN SPACE......
Chaos - you're just nicking ideas off Michael Moorcock
Nids - ooh, someone's been watching Aliens
'crons - ooh, someone's been watching Terminator
Cadian IG - ooh, someone's been watching Starship Troopers
Valhallan IG - ooh, someone's been watching Stalingrad

etc, etc, etc..


The ONLY way it would work is if they could get a director and a writer who could come up with a genuinely intriguing vision.
Something which would be instantly recognisable to 40k fans, yet not so 'out there' that people who've never heard of GW wouldn't need an hour long primer to get them into the relevant headspace.
Something which would distill the best of the background whilst simultaneously disguising its source.

If you can think of such a script, please send it (with a covering letter) to Ridley Scott, Guillermo del Toro or Paul Anderson (the one who did There Will Be Blood, not the one who did Event Horizon)

There are many reasons NOT to make a 40K movie, but the best reason TO make one is that the genre is so poorly represented, that sci fi nerds from all walks of life would go out to see it. I know many people who enjoy fiction but avoid watching sci fi like the plague because they are so horribly done. Do it justice, and it could work.

The Final fantasy movies are a great example. Excellent CGI, and yet the plot is so horrible, that the only way to watch them is to turn down the volume and turn on some music so that it becomes one long music video.

That, and something else that GW enjoys doing. Namely, making money by having the customers pay to be advertised to. Make the movie (which advertises GW's IP) and make millions from ticket and DVD sales. Then reap more benefits as a company from everyone and their buddies saying "What is this 40K they speak of?"

GW would see a huge swelling of profits that first year of its release due to this advertising. Just look at LOTR as an example. It didn't hurt GW at all, it just gave them a couple years of increased profit.

Its win win for GW.

Eldramesha wrote:

Orock wrote:I can see 10 years ago how they would be iffy with CG or possibly a live action movie with inferior special affects, but why do they still insist on keeping this excuse to print money from finalizing? Have they ever given a reason why they havent ok'd it yet. Im sure they could get some top studios interested in their IP. Just looking at the movies of today, like ironman for cg, or batman for well done special affects, what exactly is their concern?

Have you ever seen Dungeons and Dragons the Movie?

A good friend of mine worked on the Dragon in the dungeon fight for that movie and told me about the night his crew went to see the show. They were all excited to see their work on screen, knowing that it was state of the art for the time the movie was made.
After sitting through the show, everyone from his company were hanging their heads to think they'd been associated with that movie.
Moral: The coolest idea and special effects in the world will never survive contact with script writers and directors who are better suited to be throwing feces through the bars of a cage.

GW will not license it's IP to Hollywood unless said studio agrees to all creative control and final sign-offs being held by GW.

At the moment Hollywood is as likely to do that as I am to be the real Spider-man.

Did someone call for a web-slinger?

If Firefly failed, there is no way anything put out by GW would succeed.

By that I mean that in order for GW to touch on a base broader than "fanboi" it would have to market and develop a story that stood on itself but was immersed in the broader world...deal more with the characters rather than the backstory.

Firefly, in my opinion, did that pretty damn well, and look where it ended up.

You assume there would be a huge market for such a movie.

It would probably get a 15+ age rating considering the amount of violence and horror it would contain. That would rule out half the potential audience.

It was be very expensive.

They have other fish to fry.

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:GW will not license it's IP to Hollywood unless said studio agrees to all creative control and final sign-offs being held by GW.

At the moment Hollywood is as likely to do that as I am to be the real Spider-man.

Ahhh.... you were so close Chris!

Instead you had to be Peter Porker, the Spectacular Spider-Ham.

General Hobbs wrote:Look at the Harry Potter series....they are making millions, and yet have cut parts due to keeping costs down. Greed eventually would hurt the franchise.

Actually it's got nothing to do with costs, and more about the fact that including everything from the books would mean require a couple dozen movies, and spending the next thirty or so years doing nothing but Harry Potter is probably something no one involved with the project wants to do.

LOL!

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:GW will not license it's IP to Hollywood unless said studio agrees to all creative control and final sign-offs being held by GW.

At the moment Hollywood is as likely to do that as I am to be the real Spider-man.

I don't think they'd ever do that. If the only profits they'll see is from the film (and not ancillary rights), there is no fiscal reason to play ball. 40K is already a high risk property to adapt...not being able to hedge bets is suicide.

And Hollywood deals in much bigger numbers than GW.

Shotgun wrote:If Firefly failed, there is no way anything put out by GW would succeed.

By that I mean that in order for GW to touch on a base broader than "fanboi" it would have to market and develop a story that stood on itself but was immersed in the broader world...deal more with the characters rather than the backstory.

Firefly, in my opinion, did that pretty damn well, and look where it ended up.

GW's universe and Firefly have almost nothing in common except space travel. Firefly is low-tech and banter focused. 40K is far, far, far, far, far more visually dense (read $$$$). That said, Firefly's fairlure is hardly a precursor for other sci-fi failures. BSG seems to be doing alright. And then some.

The problem I see with a 40k movie is the denseness of the universe. Because there are so many faction (even just within the imperium) the movie would have to center on just one to focus on and another to be the antagonist. If they try to include more than that, it just suffers from "Street Fighter" syndrome of tacking in unnecessary characters and events just to show off other races. This, unfortunately, is a pitfall Hollywood falls into again and again. So unless you get someone who knows what the hell he is doing to write the screen play and keep the director on track, you are going to end up with a train wreck. Again, see the D&D move (or don't if you're not a masochist) or the Final Fantasy movies, or any movie based on a fighting game. The list goes on and on.

Did General Hobbs just quote and refute his own post?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Hellfury wrote:

Chris Gohlinghorst wrote:GW will not license it's IP to Hollywood unless said studio agrees to all creative control and final sign-offs being held by GW.

At the moment Hollywood is as likely to do that as I am to be the real Spider-man.

Ahhh.... you were so close Chris!

Instead you had to be Peter Porker, the Spectacular Spider-Ham.

If I can spin delicious honey-hams instead of webs, I'm in.

Ozymandias wrote:Did General Hobbs just quote and refute his own post?

Ozymandias, King of Kings

No, he just mangled the tags when quoting mine.

General Hobbs wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:Look at the Harry Potter series....they are making millions, and yet have cut parts due to keeping costs down. Greed eventually would hurt the franchise.

Actually it's got nothing to do with costs, and more about the fact that including everything from the books would mean require a couple dozen movies, and spending the next thirty or so years doing nothing but Harry Potter is probably something no one involved with the project wants to do.

General Hobbs wrote:
I don't have the article handy, but they cut the Durselys and the Ghosts out because of costs, not to save time. You don't even see the ghosts floating around in the back anymore.

Sort of true, but it only reinforces my point. It's not that they didn't have enough money to include the ghosts, but the most popular methods for inserting floating, transparent characters alongside real ones are either expensive, time consuming, or both. So when the time came to trim fat from the scripts so that the movies could be kept to a length tolerable for one sitting, the ghosts, who would be expensive to implement, and generally completly unnecessary for the story, were an easy cut to make. It's nothing at all to do with greed, and more to do with even guaranteed moneymakers can't blow money willy-nilly on expensive throwaway details.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with the Dursleys, since their sequences would be effects light. Any cuts they suffered are definitely relegated to time trimming.

Shotgun wrote:If Firefly failed, there is no way anything put out by GW would succeed.

<snip>

Firefly, in my opinion, did that pretty damn well, and look where it ended up.

Firefly didnt fail, it was pushed out. I have my guesses why, but no hard evidence to back them up.

Bookwrack wrote:

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with the Dursleys, since their sequences would be effects light. Any cuts they suffered are definitely relegated to time trimming.

Also IIRC the Dursleys have been given some time in every film so far. The Dursleys, while minor characters, are important as they anchor Potter and his world to our world. they should not be cut from the start of the next films, or at the most they should be replaced by something else mundane.

Anyway, back to the origjnal question.

I remember walking Tottenham Court Road some years back, thuis was early 90's. On the corner near Euston Rd was the HQ office of a minor film studio. The large ground floor was very spartan, all there was was a desk with a receptionist and one A3 picture per window display. One of the pictures was the that of a blonde Dark Agnel terminator sergeant with 'And They Shall Know No Fear' in a scroll above his head. the same artwork is currently in the SM codex.

I went inside and asked about this, and the receptionist told me that the company had the rights for a 40K movie.

years later I asked a GW manager with head office connections what had happened. Apparently the film comany wanted fuinding to 'research' the viability of the role. The funding was taken spent and no film was prioduced. GW had their fingers burned. Since then they have not been interested in making films.