Ken Levine Says He Killed the BioShock Film

Andy Chalk

One Flag, One Fleet, One Cat
Nov 12, 2002
45,698
1
0
Ken Levine Says He Killed the BioShock Film


Ken Levine says that when Universal got cold feet about the BioShock film, he chose to pull the plug rather than compromise the project.

Did you realize it's been almost five full years since Pirates of the Caribbean director Gore Verbinski signed on to direct the big-screen adaptation of BioShock? It all started with such promise, before slowly falling apart; Verbinski dropped out in 2009 and his replacement, 28 Weeks Later director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, departed in 2012. And now BioShock mastermind Ken Levine says he's put the brakes on the whole thing and made it clear that he's not interested in making the movie unless it can be done on his terms.

Levine said Verbinski wanted to make a "hard R film" with "a lot of blood," but Universal got jitter after the R-rated Watchmen failed to become a hit. "The studio then got cold feet about making an R-rated $200 million film, and they said, 'What if it was a $80 million film?' - and Gore didn't want to make a $80 million film," he explained. "They brought another director in, and I didn't really see the match there - and 2K's one of these companies that puts a lot of creative trust in people. So they said if you want to kill it, kill it. And I killed it."

"How many times in life do you not need to compromise? It comes along so rarely, but I had the world, the world existed and I didn't want to see it done in a way that I didn't think was right," he continued. "It may happen one day, who knows, but it'd have to be the right combination of people."

Don't hold your breath, in other words - but really, so what? I don't think the BioShock "experience" is lessened by the absence of a feature film, and I'd far rather remember it as a top-notch shooter with a cool story than as a failed big-screen cash-in. Not everything needs to be made into a movie at any cost, and good on Levine (and 2K) for realizing it.

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-12-ken-levine-personally-killed-off-the-bioshock-film-heres-why]


Permalink
 

bartholen_v1legacy

A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Jan 24, 2009
3,056
0
0
Don't hold your breath, in other words - but really, so what? I don't think the BioShock "experience" is lessened by the absence of a feature film, and I'd far rather remember it as a top-notch shooter with a cool story than as a failed big-screen cash-in. Not everything needs to be made into a movie at any cost, and good on Levine (and 2K) for realizing it.
I agree, and I say GOOD! The strength of Bioshock's story lied in the fact that it worked in a unique way for videogames. This is great news.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat šŸ
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 31, 2010
7,162
130
68
Country
šŸ‡¬šŸ‡§
Gender
ā™‚
*reads article title*

...

A curse be upon your house, Ken Levine.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
I've really lost my desire to see videogame films. I think it was around the time the Prince of Persia came out and it turned out to be a just a good arabian action-adventure.

Games are just a better way to explore the worlds. And even the characters really. Nathan Drake on screen would be just another tomb raiding film, the silent hills were more horror films. Movies can't capture the specialness
 

CPunchMaster

New member
Aug 29, 2011
51
0
0
What's the need for everything to have a film version? That's not to say that they are all bad by any means. But it just seems like everyone sees something and declares "I want a movie of that. Now!" I guess it doesn't help since after Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings, Hollywood seems desperate to find existing material and convert it into a series of films and hope the existing fanbase flocks over.

I'm not disappointed to see this get shelved. I liked Bioshock as a video game. I don't need to see it distorted into a movie.
 

darkhippie

New member
Sep 4, 2012
11
0
0
Be interesting to see a film adaption of a game with a complex plot and detailed back story, in contrast to say Hitman or Mortal Combat. That said the whole collectible tapes thing is good for computer game story telling but I am not sure it would work for a film unless you are willing to put up with constant flashbacks.
 

2clueless

Clueless since 2003
Apr 11, 2012
105
0
0
My god Ken, what have you done?

What you had to do, what you always do, turned death into a fighting chance to live.
 

StashAugustine

New member
Jan 21, 2012
179
0
0
Honestly, Bioshock is not a game that needs a movie. It's heavily reliant on a lone blank-slate protagonist, features most of its story told through environments and logs, and two central plot elements are exclusive to video games (the moral choice with the Sisters and the meta-twist midway through.)
 

kailus13

Soon
Mar 3, 2013
4,568
0
0
Given that half the point of Bioshock was that it took control away from you, making you think about free will and all that, I don't think it's a huge loss.
 

Fat Hippo

Prepare to be Gnomed
Legacy
May 29, 2009
1,991
57
33
Gender
Gnomekin
DVS BSTrD said:
The fuck you need $200 million for?
Thats was my thought. I didn't realize all movies had to be so damn expensive. And sure, Bioshock sold quite well is and is regarded extremely well among gamers, but I somehow doubt it would have the mass market appeal to make that money back at the box office.
 

Lionsfan

I miss my old avatar
Jan 29, 2010
2,842
0
0
I wouldn't mind seeing a story set in Rapture, but a straight up adaption of Bioshock would just be silly, and would just ruin the effectiveness of Jack, Andrew Ryan, and Fontaine.

Bioshock 2 would be a better film, but I would still rather just see a new story
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
bartholen said:
Don't hold your breath, in other words - but really, so what? I don't think the BioShock "experience" is lessened by the absence of a feature film, and I'd far rather remember it as a top-notch shooter with a cool story than as a failed big-screen cash-in. Not everything needs to be made into a movie at any cost, and good on Levine (and 2K) for realizing it.
I agree, and I say GOOD! The strength of Bioshock's story lied in the fact that it worked in a unique way for videogames. This is great news.
BioShock has enough lore and fluff to be put on the big screen. The problem with videogame movie adaptations is that they often want to replicate the game's story. And that's just silly, videogame narratives don't work like film narratives.

I'd honestly adore a BioShock movie exploring Ryan's character and both the construction and destruction of Rapture. Basically the stuff we know from the audiologs but never actually see ingame.

I also applaud Levine for putting his foot down. I too rather see no movie than a half-baked product.
 

ImSkeletor

New member
Feb 6, 2010
1,473
0
0
Fat_Hippo said:
DVS BSTrD said:
The fuck you need $200 million for?
Thats was my thought. I didn't realize all movies had to be so damn expensive. And sure, Bioshock sold quite well is and is regarded extremely well among gamers, but I somehow doubt it would have the mass market appeal to make that money back at the box office.
Movies do not cost that much to make. Only about 5 or so movies with that budget or higher come out per year and 90% of those are sequels or prequels or reboots of highly successful films. Out of the couple hundred movies released to theaters. The highest grossing video game film ever is prince of Persia with 335 million dollars. With the marketing budget and the amount the theater takes away the Bioshock film would have to gross in the 400 million dollar range to make a profit on that budget. Its an insane budget that no one in their right mind would spend on something that is unproven in the box office. And in a world where Star Trek 09 costs 150 million there is no reason for it to take that much to make this movie. Ken LevineGore has no understanding of film budgets
Edit: Heck even Watchman only had a budget of 130 million. Why would he need 70 more million dollars?
Edit 2: Actually upon rereading Gore is the insane one. I was too hard on Ken
 

sid

New member
Jan 22, 2013
180
0
0
It's the fucking videogame curse. How long have we been hearing about game titles galore being developed into movies? I mean, from World of Warcraft all the way to Angry Birds and beyond, it's like every movie suggestion is just blowing up before getting a chance to flourish. You can hardly blame Hollywood too, when was the last time a game even worked out on the big screen? (wreck-it ralph aside, that was Popular IPs: The Movie) I guess Lara Croft was good? Maaaaaybe Prince of Persia? Telling you, it's going to take at least a few extra years for movies to take direct inspiration from games.
 

ImSkeletor

New member
Feb 6, 2010
1,473
0
0
Cowabungaa said:
bartholen said:
Don't hold your breath, in other words - but really, so what? I don't think the BioShock "experience" is lessened by the absence of a feature film, and I'd far rather remember it as a top-notch shooter with a cool story than as a failed big-screen cash-in. Not everything needs to be made into a movie at any cost, and good on Levine (and 2K) for realizing it.
I agree, and I say GOOD! The strength of Bioshock's story lied in the fact that it worked in a unique way for videogames. This is great news.
BioShock has enough lore and fluff to be put on the big screen. The problem with videogame movie adaptations is that they often want to replicate the game's story. And that's just silly, videogame narratives don't work like film narratives.

I'd honestly adore a BioShock movie exploring Ryan's character and both the construction and destruction of Rapture. Basically the stuff we know from the audiologs but never actually see ingame.

I also applaud Levine for putting his foot down. I too rather see no movie than a half-baked product.
This is not Ken Levine putting his foot down. This is Ken Levine asking for an insane amount of money that no one would ever agree to. For the reasons I stated above.