Angry Birds Officially Coming to Theaters

[Fanghawk]

Angry Birds Officially Coming to Theaters

Rovio Entertainment is financing a full-length Angry Birds film planned for summer 2016.

It may have started out as a simple iPhone game, but Angry Birds has become a full-blown media phenomenon. The title hatched countless sequels, spin-offs, collectibles, plushies, even <a href=http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Angry-Birds-Feathered/dp/1426209967/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355282559&sr=1-1&keywords=angry+birds>honest-to-God National Geographic collections, and its popularity isn't likely to dim anytime soon. Out of the remaining mediums for Angry Birds to slingshot into, creative team Rovio Entertainment is arguably most excited about film, and has spent <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102891-Angry-Birds-Possibly-Flapping-From-iPhone-to-Movie-Theaters>the past two years working towards that goal. These efforts are finally paying off; the developer has officially announced that Angry Birds will get its theatrical release in the summer of 2016. Rovio will finance the computer-generated adaptation while Despicable Me's John Cohen and Iron Man's David Maisel have signed on to produce.

"I'm so excited and honored to be working on this film with Mikael, David, and Rovio's incredibly talented game developers and artists," said Cohen. "From both an entertainment and strategic perspective, Rovio is at the forefront of game innovation and is trailblazing terrific new ways for Angry Birds fans to interact with these characters. I've personally spent countless hours playing the Angry Birds games over the last few years, which I can now happily justify as research for the movie."

Angry Birds doesn't exactly have a plot or character arc that can be translated to film, but from a production perspective it should be an interesting experiment. Rovio is developing the Angry Birds movie outside of the traditional studio system, and by doing so maintains full creative control over the project from start to finish. It's the same process Marvel Studios used to create its Cinematic Marvel Universe, and while that doesn't guarantee a critical success, it will allow Rovio to create as faithful an adaptation as it wishes. Considering <a href=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108255/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1>how rarely that happens for videogame adaptations, the Angry Birds movie could be worth following for that detail alone.

Source: <a href=http://www.rovio.com/en/news/press-releases/248/rovio-announces-john-cohen-as-the-producer-of-angry-birds-movie>Rovio, via <a href=http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-12-11-the-angry-birds-movie-officially-announced>Eurogamer

Permalink

 

[juyunseen]

http://roosterteeth.com/archive/?id=3015

Rooster Teeth predicted it, and so it shall come.

 

[AldUK]

And it all began as a clone of 'Crush the Castle' from Armor Games.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Ok then this is a thing. I'm now wondering how weird it would be if the angry birds movie is actually better than most other videogame movie adaptions.

 

[Avaholic03]

http://roosterteeth.com/archive/?id=3015

Rooster Teeth predicted it, and so it shall come.

No way the actual movie will be as good as that trailer.

captcha: good luck

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

Because movies based of video games are always so great. Although not sure I'd call Rovio at the forefront of innovation. I mean sure they put an interesting spin on Crush the Castle(different ammo types and being forced to use certain ammo) and had a nice visual style but that would be about it as far as I can see on the video game side. Sure it is what 4 years off so the movie might be worth it but I doubt it given the track record of people like Uwe Boll.

 

[Fleetfiend]

Why is it that Angry Birds gets the funding for a full-length feature film, and games with actual narrative potential such as Bioshock (though there are rumors), Halo (they started to...), Fallout (not Cowboys versus Aliens), etcetera (I could go on forever), don't? That's the only thing that really bothers me about this.

 

[gardian06]

Why is it that Angry Birds gets the funding for a full-length feature film, and games with actual narrative potential such as Bioshock (though there are rumors), Halo (they started to...), Fallout (not Cowboys versus Aliens), etcetera (I could go on forever), don't? That's the only thing that really bothers me about this.

size of the target audience, and possibility for a flop.
Bioshock: either you get a re-hash of one of the games (probably the first one), or you get something like the Resident Evil movies
Halo: the director (Peter Jackson) said "you can't hold up an entire 2+ hour movie with a guy in a mask who barely speaks" and the other stories are not considered to be interesting enough to capture audience attention. you say Halo Movie, and as soon as people hear it doesn't have Master Chief as a main character, and most of the general audience will just lose interest. so they made District 9 instead.
Fallout: you have a similar issue with Halo, but to a greater extent because the silent protagonist, and choice based storyline means that a lot of the audience that would go see it will either become greatly angry, or just won't care. at best you have a post apocalyptic setting, and if you think the number of games that get made with that setting are staggering then you should think of how many movies get pitched (and shot down for good measure) in the movie industry.
etcetera: no actual knowledge of this title.

also this has to do with the fact that many of these movies are pitched to studios, and this is basically going the full indie rout, so that Rovio maintains creative license, and the movie rights.

most games you either get a really good story that is more because of the player projections onto the character, or choices they make (which if the studio/director/writer makes the "wrong" ones the audience will go Hulk Rage and won't buy tie-ins), or a setting that when removed from the characters either looks like Generic Action Movie 389, or something completely different then what the series fans would want to see.

 

[Shinsei-J]

Horrible, just horrible.
It's a flippin' minigame, just why. (Money)
Give us something good, like a Deus Ex movie
or anything without a story that can be summed up in a sentence.

 

[Berithil]

Why?

Just... Why?*


Of all the games out there they could be making an adaptation out of, they pick freakin Angry Birds?
How about something a little more story driven?

[sub]* Rhetorical question. Money is the answer.[/sub]

Ok, so I understand why, but that doesn't make me any less disappointed. Still, video game to movie adaptations tend to not be the greatest films out there, so there probably isn't that big of a loss.

 

[gardian06]

Why?

Just... Why?*


Of all the games out there they could be making an adaptation out of, they pick freakin Angry Birds?
How about something a little more story driven?

[sub]* Rhetorical question. Money is the answer.[/sub]

Ok, so I understand why, but that doesn't make me any less disappointed. Still, video game to movie adaptations tend to not be the greatest films out there, so there probably isn't that big of a loss.

Horrible, just horrible.
It's a flippin' minigame, just why. (Money)
Give us something good, like a Deus Ex movie
or anything without a story that can be summed up in a sentence.

you know your missing the point slightly that Rovio is Funding, and controlling this, so they are the ones deciding this. don't get angry at the fact it is Angry Birds, but more that other developers are not trying to fund there own movie adaptations.

Spoiler: for a reasonable explanation as to some of the reasons

Why is it that Angry Birds gets the funding for a full-length feature film, and games with actual narrative potential such as Bioshock (though there are rumors), Halo (they started to...), Fallout (not Cowboys versus Aliens), etcetera (I could go on forever), don't? That's the only thing that really bothers me about this.

size of the target audience, and possibility for a flop.
Bioshock: either you get a re-hash of one of the games (probably the first one), or you get something like the Resident Evil movies
Halo: the director (Peter Jackson) said "you can't hold up an entire 2+ hour movie with a guy in a mask who barely speaks" and the other stories are not considered to be interesting enough to capture audience attention. you say Halo Movie, and as soon as people hear it doesn't have Master Chief as a main character, and most of the general audience will just lose interest. so they made District 9 instead.
Fallout: you have a similar issue with Halo, but to a greater extent because the silent protagonist, and choice based storyline means that a lot of the audience that would go see it will either become greatly angry, or just won't care. at best you have a post apocalyptic setting, and if you think the number of games that get made with that setting are staggering then you should think of how many movies get pitched (and shot down for good measure) in the movie industry.
etcetera: no actual knowledge of this title.

also this has to do with the fact that many of these movies are pitched to studios, and this is basically going the full indie rout, so that Rovio maintains creative license, and the movie rights.

most games you either get a really good story that is more because of the player projections onto the character, or choices they make (which if the studio/director/writer makes the "wrong" ones the audience will go Hulk Rage and won't buy tie-ins), or a setting that when removed from the characters either looks like Generic Action Movie 389, or something completely different then what the series fans would want to see.

 

[Shinsei-J]

snip

You kinda also missed the point of my post a little, I did write it a bit angrily though so no problems.
I'm just annoyed that we'll see an Angry Birds movie before we'll see the first great video game movie adaptation.
As for the indie thing, it's about cash, it's not that they couldn't find someone to take it on, it's a money spinner and that's it.
With game developers going into movies? that's a terrible idea right off the bat.
Maybe publishers, but studios?

But I digress, my point is that I know it's for money, I know why other games haven't gotten the opportunity and I know it's going to happen whether I like it or not, I'd just like to see things go differently.
It's just my naivety.

 

[Jegsimmons]

And it all began as a clone of 'Crush the Castle' from Armor Games.

this.


also ROOSTER TEETH BEAT THEM TO IT!!!

 

[scorptatious]

...

Meh. That's all I have to say about that.

*goes back to playing Angry Birds Seasons*

 

[Gearhead mk2]

...oh, this is gonna be stupid.

 

[Dr. Thrax]

Oh jeegus chfist.. Please, no..
I remember reading awhile back in the ME3 fiasco that people wanted a Mass Effect movie, and honestly, I'll take that over a friggin' Angry Birds movie..
Of all the games in the world to make a movie about, and they decide with Angry Birds... Oy vey.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

I'm pretty sure Angry Birds can be classified as a fad, which I assume means you gotta cash in quick while there's still interest. With Phone gaming still pretty much in its infancy and the next new big thing around the corner, I'm not so sure that Angry Birds will be in 2016 what it is today. It strikes me as similar to that Napoleon Dynamite TV show releasing years after everyone who did enjoy the movie quit giving a shit.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

So Angry Birds first...it'll be Minesweeper next.


Eeyup. Not long now.

Vid related.