The Choice to Make a Bioshock Movie

A godsend for Bioshock fans: Uwe Boll will not direct the movie version. Granted, that was an extremely unlikely possibility, but there are plenty of directors that would have been almost as bad. Video games to movies have been nowhere close to as successful as comic books, commercially or critically. In fact, they've mostly been costly embarrassments regardless of the director. I thought the under-appreciated Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was a technical masterpiece that had an interesting although convoluted story. Yet, despite Sony's efforts, critics disparaged it (44% on RottenTomatoes) and box office results created a financial disaster ($140 million production budget, $32.1 million domestic box office). Although there have been box office successes like Lara Croft: Tomb Raider ($80 million budget, $131.1 million domestic), they're usually critically trashed (Lara managed just 19% on RT) and haven't come close to matching the amazing box office and critical results of comic movies like X-Men, Spider-Man and this month's Iron Man. Why get stuck doing video game remakes, with a best-case scenario of a Resident Evil type franchise, when there is plenty of untapped comic book material out there?

If anyone could turn around the video game spin-off genre, it is Gore Verbinski and that's likely why Universal and Take-Two decided to bring him aboard for Bioshock. He managed the miraculous theme park ride to movie translation that grossed Disney over a billion in domestic box office ($305.4M + $423.0M + $309.4M = $1,037.8M) and won critics over (at least the first one did). As a fan of Bioshock, would he be my top choice? No, I'd probably go with Darren Aronofsky, but that would likely come at the cost of funding issues, delays and a much lower box office -- it would be nice to see a sequel or two. If one were to graph directors using the variables of commercial success and artistic integrity, Verbinski would represent one of the best trade-offs, although I'll have to go back and watch The Mexican and Mousehunt.

Would you kindly watch this trailer... Warning: graphic content from game


For those who haven't played Bioshock, or did but didn't enjoy it, a movie version could seem like yet another zombies-run-amok movie simply set underwater. It could easily turn into that type of movie and that would be a sad waste of the franchise. I borrowed Bioshock after hearing an onslaught of amazing reviews. I didn't see how a seemingly standard first person shooter could be that amazing. Despite an apparently open-ended beginning, it began to look a lot like the linear, run-around-in-corridors-and-beat-zombies-with-a-blunt-object-type game, but there was a lingering mystery that kept me playing. In fact, the game play was almost a distraction; I played only to learn more about the world of Rapture. About 10 to 12 hours later, I had answers and I badly wanted to see a movie version. Unlike the Xbox signature title, Halo (which currently sits in development hell), Bioshock offered an intricate character-driven story that wouldn't break the bank with effects.

Yet, there are seemingly insurmountable hurdles for the movie to clear. The game reveals critical spoilers that are fundamental to the story, but also diminish the value of a second viewing. Once one knows those secrets, it's not going to be as exciting, but if they decide to change those secrets, how can the movie be faithful to the original story? Yes, the atmosphere and set design could be awe-inspiring. Seeing a Big Daddy on the big screen will be exciting, but that merely sets the mood. For the movie to be complete, we will have to care about the characters. For those of us that liked the game, we did that, but we know how it ends. Can Verbinski breath a new life (or inject some Adam) into Jack? I don't know, but at least there's hope now. I'll be in line for the Bioshock movie on some Friday in 2010 (as of writing this, there is no official release date).

off-topic update 5/15 Looks like there's a basis to the sea slugs in bioshock.