Activision CEO says Call of Duty movie could taint the brand
Activision CEO Bobby Kotick talks about game-to-movie adaptations, diluting core brands, and the decision to fire Jason West and Vince Zampella.
As more and more games get turned into Hollywood movies every year, Call of Duty seems like a natural fit. While its bombastic action would go well with the likes of Michael Bay, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick is opposed to such a move.
According to a profile from the New York Times, "Mr. Kotick has little interest in turning [Call of Duty] into [a movie]--and has turned down several studios' requests. He says movies based on video games rarely please devoted fans and could taint the brand."
Instead of a live action movie, it appears Activision is more invested in Call of Duty Elite. The service includes access to Call of Duty Elite TV, with "developer tips and strategy programming, custom class overviews and more."
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Activision CEO says Call of Duty movie could taint the brand.
Activision CEO Bobby Kotick talks about game-to-movie adaptations, diluting core brands, and the decision to fire Jason West and Vince Zampella.-
-
-
Whew, thought I was gonna have to be the first one to say it.
taint, LOL
-
-
-
The key word being "taint".
-
lol no doubt
-
-
Diluting core brands. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
-
Does it? You guys are all scoffing, but every year we go through this shit and it still sells better than the last iteration. Also, the engine isn't even close to 10 years. Jesus. Hyperbole much. I'll grant you it hasn't changed much since Modern Warfare 2 in 2009, but there are worse offenders in video games.
Seriously, none of you have any idea when it comes to Call of Duty. We hear the same shit every year. Yeah, I get the argument, it seems like it makes sense, but Call of Duty defies it. It's still selling. It's getting good reviews. It's not being rundown. It's not being "tainted". Maybe next year though. A new generation could have that effect.
As for Kotick's statement, as absurd as it may seem I think he's actually right. Call of Duty is still at the height of its popularity. Doing a movie now would perhaps harm the brand or over expose it. Media wise. Fans of the series are cool with a new game every year. But if the quality of the movie isn't so hot then that could hurt things. I'm not sure what a movie would achieve that Hollywood (or other) isn't already doing. Act of Valor. Zero Dark Thirty. Why mess with that. Wait for the series to decline in popularity as it eventually will and then do the movie. If it's good enough it could even revive the series. If it's not good then it wrings the last big of big-money you can get out of it before it becomes Medal of Honor (or worse).-
I don't think there are worse offenders in the boxed AAA space. Call of Duty's engine is "heavily modified Id Tech 3". Yes, numerous parts of the code have been rewritten, but there are still several legacy limitations that are wallpapered-over by Activision PR, and become evident on reviewing the released product. The leapfrog strategy makes it very difficult for Activision to plan a large-scale code change, though perhaps Raven's expertise on Unreal Engine 3 could provide a transition point. It also didn't help that most of the engine devs left either from the Respawn incident or through regular staff turnover.
There's going to be some point where Activision will need to allow for a full engine rewrite / relicensing, but not yet.-
That'll happen when it goes to next-gen. I would think. I think Raven has been working on that, but that's just a guess.
Source is a pretty offender. Granted, it's a lot more versatile now (OSX, Linux) and it has had updates, but the Orange Box was the last big update to that and that was 2007.-
[deleted]
-
-
Errr... no. I consider the Call of Duty engine one of the most impressive of the generation. You can push engine technology in a variety of directions but you only have so much push to give. Some engines focus on eye candy - 30fps, static world, only a few moving characters on screen at a time. Some focus elsewhere - 60fps, many actors, more particle effects, etc. You can't have everything.
All things considered I'd say CoD tech is among the most efficient, most optimized, and hardest pushed technologies of this generation.-
But it still looks like a shrink-wrap coated, overly shiny turd.
Crysis the original had the generation's best everything( graphics, AI, sound, and physics) and came out over four years ago, and still looks better than new releases. RAGE is a much more visually appealing game than COD. Nothing about the recent COD games has spectacular or something new.
-
-
-
-
I seriously doubt madden does as much work between game updates as any of the COD games. I don't know the size of the madden teams but I know Treyarch for example has a HUGE team even though you seem to think it's the same every year.
-
-
-
-
Sounds to me like the movie studios and Activision couldn't agree on how to split the profits.
-
This is the entire article from NY times if you guys want a DL. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/business/bobby-kotick-of-activision-drawing-praise-and-wrath.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
-
Reasoning aside, it's probably better this way anyhow. I mean, what would a Call of Duty movie be like? I can't think of a single thing that would distinguish it from pretty much every other military action movie we've seen in the last 20 years.
-
-
Indeed. A CoD movie would seem absurdly circular.
-
-
-
I would watch a movie that was complete parody of modern shooters, Airplane style.
-
-
Copy one of the 60-second Call of Duty commercials, and paste 119 times.
-
-
-
tee hee
-
[deleted]
-
This just in, Activision has just released a statement confirming the upcoming release of 'Call of Duty 5: Modern Warfare 4: You Suckers Will Buy Anything', due next month.
-
i think call of duty is tainting the call of duty brand.
-
[deleted]
-
sales and marketing thinks that since teenagers play games, the movie should target teenagers. what you end up with is a diluted product that completely misses the point. if a COD movie ever comes out, it would need to be a hard R simply because the success of the gaming franchise has been taken in that direction. anything other than a R rating simply isn't a good representation of the game and its core audience. i am 100% certain it will be a pg-13 movie once all is said and done.
-
It's true, you gotta give him that!
-
-
Because yearly released of the same recycled crap hasn't done it?
-
It's still bizarre to me that he was in Moneyball.
-
The Shack article jump link reads "Kotick on firing West and Zampella", but the Shack article itself fails to provide.
Here's the relevant quote from Kotick: "You find out two executives are planning to break their contracts, keep the money you gave them and steal 40 employees. What do you do? You fire them."
Yup. You fire them, about 40 employees at Infinity Ward end up resigning ANYWAY and turning up at some company called Respawn Entertainment, both sides sue each other, stay in a stalemate up to the week of the court date (including a discovery round that results in Bungie's "Destiny" contract getting publicized: http://www.shacknews.com/article/73898/bungies-destiny-exclusive-to-xbox-360-launching-in-2013-original )... only to settle the whole thing days before the first day of trial.
Firing West and Zampella was inevitable, but what happened afterwards was fumbled. I'm not a business expert, but if a legal fight ends up disclosing previously confidential information, you went penny-wise and pound-foolish, and probably should've settled earlier. However, the most significant victory was secured: preventing either side from disclosing any details that would've been aired in a Los Angeles court starting the week of E3 2012. -
[deleted]
-
A movie tainting the CoD brand?
Whatever, what do you think all the players and developers have been doing the last 7 iterations on the same game?
What he probably meant to say is "I don't think we would get a good return on our investment thanks to Hollywood accounting", but he probably has to be a bit diplomatic. -
[deleted]
-
