The Official Bioshock Movie Thread (On general discussion)

[Ryans Rapture]

For what its worth,

Universal is kind of crazy place right now because of the Comcast merger, there been some executive changeovers and there might be more on the way. Additionally, they have a contract with Hasbro to produce movies based on their IP within a very limited timeframe, or else they lose the rights, so they are deep into production on the very expensive (last rumor was 200M) Battleship hoping it hits ala Transformers and have other films like Ouija and (believe it or not) Stretch Armstrong in active development for 2012.

Its very unlikely they could get a Bioshock film into production for release in 2011, and most likely you would not want to see a project like this taken on right now given the merger uncertainties. With so much of the slate tied up in 2012 with the Hasbro properties, its very unlikely you would see a Bioshock film until spring of 2013 at the earliest, and depending on the budget/rating/other variables, it would seem more likely to be penciled in for a mid/late July date.

In short, I don't think its a dead project, but don't hold your breath.

Believe it or not. They're making a "Family Circus" movie. So if there going to make a movie based on one of the world unfunniest cartoons. I'll believe you that they're making a Stretch Armstrong movie.

And yes, we understand Universal isn't a perfect place and will most likely always have complications. But if you read of any of my info in the "Current Info" section. You would have seen I already have written the expected release date of 2013.

Fortunately, I am very optimistic about this movie. Whether everyone thinks there is only a 1% of it coming out or not. I will hold on to that 1% as hard as I can until it reaches 0. Then still, Im gonna hope for a Bioshock movie in the later future!



Also, dont forget to check out the New "Recommended for you." section and feel free to add some of your own movie thoughts there! [Yes, kind of a shameless advertisement]

[Inhale/exhale]

But if you read of any of my info in the "Current Info" section. You would have seen I already have written the expected release date of 2013.

Don't be defensive. The key word there is expected. 2013 is quite some time away, and if a new studio head is put in this might be viewed as a tainted project from the old regime and never get made. Or it could be looked at as a neglected property that never got the attention it should have and get fast tracked. There's no way to know.

As previously discussed, the budget and film rating are major concerns. Add in the length of time from the original game release, which was one of the issues blamed when Doom underperformed at the box office, and there are a whole lot of question marks surrounding the film.

Gore Verbinski is an incredibly talented director, but 160M is an enormous sum of money, well above any other video game adaptation to date that I am aware of. The marketing on a film like that would likely run an additional 60-80m or more depending on release date and would have to play broader and/or be extremely strong in the worldwide market to get a return on that investment. DVD sales are not anywhere near what they used to be, and three years down the road its widely expected that home video will have mostly shifted to a more direct download/on demand/ppv type format. Pay and broadcast TV rights are not as lucrative as they used to be either. I don't know that you can funnel this property into an theme park attraction. (As hilariously awesome as that would be).

Budget-wise you could maybe try to put a film and its sequel into production and shoot them back-to-back to get the per film cost down, but for an unknown quantity like this that's a Lord of the Rings type bet to make with an IP that doesn't have anywhere near that level of recognition.

Recent box office has not been promising for R rated genre films in this neighborhood: Watchmen and Kick Ass were widely viewed as under performing. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned Halo which provides a kind of frightening parallel to Bioshock in that even with talent like Peter Jackson and Guillermo Del Toro attached could not get into production.

I don't know how you get this movie out the door with an R rated theatrical release at that budget level. You would need another R rated film to outperform box office expectations to demonstrate the audience exists for it.

[Ryans Rapture]

I wasn't trying to be defensive, but rather explain that your paragraph on it's expected release date, was already notified of. And yes, who knwos what the heck will happen with this movie between now and then. But who cares, this thread is to inform you of what's going on now and a few tidbits of the future. There are no guesses in this thread, only the info that many providers have given and supported.


And yes..... Doom kind of sucked at the box office as well as storyline. But I see two main reasons why Bioshock may do a bit better at the box office.

1. Because Bioshock has much more story to go on from. Doom, I'm sure is a classic in the hearts of some people. But really. It's just another FPS. While Bioshock is a story driven game. On a personal note, I've had friends who did not want to play the game. But rather asked me to beat the whole thing in one night just so they could hear the story. Bioshock has a chance to be a good movie. So Im giving it one.
2. Bioshock is also expected to coincide with the release of Bioshock 3. Not Infinite. Meaning that everyone will once again be visited with the spirit of Rapture and want to watch how it all started.

There are a couple more reasons, but not as important as those two. But there is something you said I found funny because it seemed hypocritical. At the beginning, you talked about how "2013 is quite some time away". While your basing how Bioshock may do at the Box office by current box office revenues for R-rated movies!

And I think if there is going to be an R-rated movie that will shine through the rest. This is it. Bioshock deseves it, it needs it, and most of all. Everyone wants it.

{P.S. The budget has now been cut down to below $100 mill. So they will need to spend it as wisely as they can.}

[Inhale/exhale]

Because Bioshock has much more story to go on from. Doom, I'm sure is a classic in the hearts of some people. But really. It's just another FPS. While Bioshock is a story driven game. On a personal note, I've had friends who did not want to play the game. But rather asked me to beat the whole thing in one night just so they could hear the story. Bioshock has a chance to be a good movie. So Im giving it one.

I don't think the story material is in question: it does need some adaptation: fleshing out Jack as a character, condensing the entire plotline to a reasonable running time, editing the subplots as necessary, and some work on the ending. But its strong filmic material.

Bioshock is also expected to coincide with the release of Bioshock 3. Not Infinite. Meaning that everyone will once again be visited with the spirit of Rapture and want to watch how it all started.

This is less important, although one might imagine some shared marketing expenses. The film has to play beyond just a 18-34 male gamer demographic to recoup.

But there is something you said I found funny because it seemed hypocritical. At the beginning, you talked about how "2013 is quite some time away". While your basing how Bioshock may do at the Box office by current box office revenues for R-rated movies!

I'm not following you. Is there some other historical data I should be looking at?

if there is going to be an R-rated movie that will shine through the rest. This is it.

I certainly hope so. And there have been other R Rated genre films that have surprised the industry: The Matrix and 300 come to mind. The ingredients are there for a good (and profitable) Bioshock film if they can keep the production costs down.

Still, its all conjecture at this point.

[Ryans Rapture]

I don't think the story material is in question: it does need some adaptation: fleshing out Jack as a character, condensing the entire plotline to a reasonable running time, editing the subplots as necessary, and some work on the ending. But its strong filmic material.

Who cares if they condense the storyline. Considering there were a ton of side missions that did not really need to be completed except to get more of an essence of Rapture and make it a longer game. The movie has the perfect amount of core in-game storyline to go on from. So people will want to see it, because of that.

This is less important, although one might imagine some shared marketing expenses. The film has to play beyond just a 18-34 male gamer demographic to recoup.

I don't see this being less important. You clearly said that "Doom underperformed at the box office" because if you "Add[ed] in the length of time from the original game release" people will be uninterested and will not have a high market during that period. While Bioshock will not only still have the popularity of Infinite if it turns out to be a good game. But Bioshock 3 will hopefully be coming out with the movie as well. Which just gives it a more higher market, and prime time of releasing.

I'm not following you. Is there some other historical data I should be looking at?

NO! That's just it. You can't base how Bioshock will do at the Box Office in 2013, by current box office revenues. Bioshock is like 2.5 years away. (Mind you if it comes out.) Who knows what people's tastes in movies are going to be like then.



Anyway, sorry to continually argue with you. We both have our own opinions on how the Bioshock movie will do at it's release. Or if it's released. But this thread is merely at the point of giving people up to date info. You can discuss about it, disagree with it, say the source is unreliable, add your own source. These all make for lively conversation, and hopefully. We can all see eye-to-eye in the end.

[Ryans Rapture]

It appears there has no been no major update in the Bioshock movie progress. This is a reminder and an update of a few things.

There is a new "Recommended for you" section which features some movies you may enjoy between now and Bioshock!
The front page is cleaner and updated with a new question of the week! Hope some people are curious and answer.

And if ANYONE has any new info, please post and share for the whole community. Thank you, and have a wonderful Winter break everyone.

[Vito_Lucente]

Wow... Lots o' info ya' got here.

[Schickacka]

I hope the movie doesn't follow the Resident Evil example. WHO THE HELL IS ALICE? HOW DID SHE GET THERE?

I'd be so happy if there was still time and they changed Universal Pictures for Warner Bros. as production company and Ken Levine as screen writer. Think they'd make a huge film to pair with the original BioShock game.

[FtRapture]

I hope the movie doesn't follow the Resident Evil example. WHO THE HELL IS ALICE? HOW DID SHE GET THERE?

I know! with so many excellent characters from the game, why make one up? :\

Would I want a Bioshock Movie with a brand new main character... uhhhh... no.

[Ryans Rapture]

Update ---------- Whoa ho ho, apparently they may have decided on a new actor for Jack! Sam Brodie, most known for his independent work in "Red Corvette", "The Kingdom", and "Teller". He's only labeled as "rumoured", but it seems pretty likely under todays circumstances. A new "Rumoured actors" section has been added seeing as there are at least 3 now.

[FtRapture]

That is actually really good news, and a much better choice than Wentworth, thanks for the update.

[Robsqwi]

I hope they do make it!

[Ryans Rapture]

I hope they do make it!

Thank you very much for your input Robsqwi. As I said on the front page, commenting is greatly appreciated (even if its a little comment) and I totally agree with your post as well!

Hopefully the info I have given you has been interesting and helpful.

[graveyardd]

This is less important, although one might imagine some shared marketing expenses. The film has to play beyond just a 18-34 male gamer demographic to recoup.

I think that is actually easily enough done, should they choose to portray the movie with a more adult setting rather than "this is a movie about a video game - so if you loved the game, go see this!"
Think about The Dark Knight and how well it did. The hype surrounding Heath Ledger aside, a key point in TDK was the social issues that came about due to The Joker as a character. Keeping in mind that technically Batman was just "another superhero movie" to a general audience, I personally think what really made the movie worthwhile for the adult crowd was the social implications that it carried, such as the Joker's speeches about social anarchy, or scenes such as the cruise ship. I know a lot of people outside of the 18-34 male gamer crowd (which I suppose translated for TDK into the 18-34 male comic-reader crowd) who truly enjoyed it specifically for that aspect of the film above all else.

Now return to Bioshock, which raises even more questions about capitalism/greed, power struggles, the role of the people, revolution etc. Movies with similar ideas have typically been regarded well by a broader range of people, like V for Vendetta and The Dark Knight. Psychological aspects like mind control and propaganda have always caught a wider audience too, if you think of A Clockwork Orange and most recently Inception (with the whole theory of planting ideas in someone's head). It is easy to place Bioshock more among these types than the likes of Watchmen and K-A if they play their cards right.

I have not seen too many other video game movies, but I hazard a guess that most end up focusing on a "movie video game" rather than really portraying it as a fully-fleshed film story, which needs to have issues for people to emotionally attach to - something not necessarily required to make a good video game. That kind of attachment - "makes you think" - is already present in Bioshock. I think if Bioshock can be marketed in such a way that it highlights these things (which are at the center of the Rapture storyline) it could potentially draw more of an audience than just the sci-fi element would alone. There is a specific crowd of people that will go to any movie that looks like a good Dystopian flick - myself and family included I also know a lot of folks whom I've talked to about the game who are not gamers but expressed interest in the storyline, which perhaps alludes to the movie setting working perhaps even better than the video game for some.

If they play up the end correctly (which is arguably harder without the video game element lending to the WYK mind control) it could also possibly end up as one of those movies that has a slow start, but once everyone starts talking about "the crazy twist in the end" it will get some serious attention.

[Berringer]

Update ---------- Whoa ho ho, apparently they may have decided on a new actor for Jack! Sam Brodie, most known for his independent work in "Red Corvette", "The Kingdom", and "Teller". He's only labeled as "rumoured", but it seems pretty likely under todays circumstances. A new "Rumoured actors" section has been added seeing as there are at least 3 now.

Are you basing this on just the IMDB listing change? If so, I wouldn't put too much hope into it. IMDB listings can be changed by anyone, and many times it's bogus info. I'd wait to report it until you got the info from a legitamate movie site.

[Banshy52]

I am very exited that Bioshock's amazing story is being put into a movie. The story is quite deep enough! I wonder who will play Atlas? Also im guessing there using the good ending not the good qualty good *but it will be good qualty*. Anyways im saying thank you to Ryans Rapture for posting this & for keeping us updated!

[Ryans Rapture]

Are you basing this on just the IMDB listing change? If so, I wouldn't put too much hope into it. IMDB listings can be changed by anyone, and many times it's bogus info. I'd wait to report it until you got the info from a legitamate movie site.

Your right Berringer, although I am basing this off IMDB's listings. That's why I happen to put it under a "Rumoured" actors section. So as to not say its definite, I jsut posted my personal opinion saying it seemed likely under the circumstances. Although you coudl be right, it may just be a prankster or a hopefuly person. Who knows, but thank you for commenting anyway!

And Banshy52, your very welcome. Always here to make sure the community's happy with.... stuff.

[Inhale/exhale]

Not to be a debbie downer but...

The Dark Knight, while thematically a good template in terms of socio-political content, is not a great direct IP comaprison: there were multiple Batman films prior & it remains one of the most widely known comic book heroes ever.

V for Vendetta is a better comparison, and has developed a longer post theatrical life, and pop culture resonance than Warner Brothers probably ever believed it would, (recall that city council shooting a few weeks ago?)
...BUT... final domestic theatrical gross: 70M, worldwide 132M. You can't hang a $150M budget on the expectation of similar grosses.

Interesting that you picked two Warner Brothers films. This material does seem to be more naturally in their wheelhouse than Universal's. A good film can be made anywhere though.

[graveyardd]

Not to be a debbie downer but...

The Dark Knight, while thematically a good template in terms of socio-political content, is not a great direct IP comaprison: there were multiple Batman films prior & it remains one of the most widely known comic book heroes ever.

V for Vendetta is a better comparison, and has developed a longer post theatrical life, and pop culture resonance than Warner Brothers probably ever believed it would, (recall that city council shooting a few weeks ago?)
...BUT... final domestic theatrical gross: 70M, worldwide 132M. You can't hang a $150M budget on the expectation of similar grosses.

Interesting that you picked two Warner Brothers films. This material does seem to be more naturally in their wheelhouse than Universal's. A good film can be made anywhere though.

That is a good point, but the comic book aspect can also stifle the audience to a certain criteria, as you said would be an issue for Bioshock - that's what I was getting at. There was much trepidation in my house over going to see a "comic book movie" because it wasn't normally my family's type of movie. We also didn't watch Watchmen (lol) because it was "some superhero movie", and I couldn't personally sell them on the themes of the story, mainly because Watchmen's ideas - in my opinion - were a lot weaker.

IA with both your V for Vendetta the Warner Bros comments. I honestly hope they can cut the budget down as they said they were going to. All that's left is hiring a really ace marketing team, lol. I have to wonder if Warner Bros reasoning is similar to yours as to why they didn't pick it up? I'm not too familiar with that kind of information, though.

[Vengencer]

ok this should be a hardcore R but one problem......is there ANYTHING bioshock related coming out in 2011 cuz otherwise im really sad 2012 bioshock infinite and 2013 bioshock movie (if they even finish it then)

[Misanthropy.]

I'm really rather excited for this.
But to comment on what graveyardd previously said. I think that if the marketing is done well enough the fact that it's adapted from a video game shouldn't matter and I think that the BioShock story is strong enough to hold up on it's own than be hindered by label of being a 'video game movie'. And considering the fact that the previous vg movies like resident evil and silent hill did quite well for themselves (I mean in their lifetime instead of just at the box office). But I do agree that there will probably be a few people who won't see it because it's a vg film and that is a shame because they'll be missing out.

[xPOORGUYx]

such a long wait yet im so anticipated

[Inhale/exhale]

previous vg movies like resident evil and silent hill did quite well for themselves

Would you go for a Bioshock film in 3D? Resident Evil: Afterlife had a decent opening and very fast burn before topping out at 60M in the US, but had phenomenal International grosses (236M) that can be almost entirely attributed to the fact that it was a 3D film. (that additional upcharge adds up). If you can generate that level of return it might be enough to justify the budget. (Its worth noting: aside from the split to the exhibitor, some of the 3D ticket price you pay goes to RealD)

The obvious drawback is that shooting in 3D puts some specific limits in how you make the film, everything from shot length, speed of cuts, tilts/pans, etc is affected. The game was widely praised for its immersive environment, but part of that comes from the player taking the time to observe design details. One of the main drawbacks of 3D are the focus shifts which would prevent or limit some of the background detail in any given shot. Is it is worth that tradeoff to get the film made?

[TAK The Voyager]

Gah, of course the reason would be money. Too afraid to take a chance with this film...

TAK

[Ryans Rapture]

Would you go for a Bioshock film in 3D? Resident Evil: Afterlife had a decent opening and very fast burn before topping out at 60M in the US, but had phenomenal International grosses (236M) that can be almost entirely attributed to the fact that it was a 3D film. (that additional upcharge adds up). If you can generate that level of return it might be enough to justify the budget. (Its worth noting: aside from the split to the exhibitor, some of the 3D ticket price you pay goes to RealD)

The obvious drawback is that shooting in 3D puts some specific limits in how you make the film, everything from shot length, speed of cuts, tilts/pans, etc is affected. The game was widely praised for its immersive environment, but part of that comes from the player taking the time to observe design details. One of the main drawbacks of 3D are the focus shifts which would prevent or limit some of the background detail in any given shot. Is it is worth that tradeoff to get the film made?

From a personal perspective. I say no. I like how Christopher Nolan noted that for Inception, when asked if he would do it in 3D he immediately said no. I found this to be a wise choice because it would simply confuse audiences too much, and they wouldn't really get that feel of atmosphere that Nolan was going for.

I think the same goes for Bioshock. Like you said, 3D puts some drawbacks on how you make the film, and as an audience to see a world like Rapture. I'm more interested in noticing the tiny, beautiful details than having water shoved in my face as we go down a bathysphere.



Update ----- For those people looking for further info and exploring sites like IMDB by themselves. You will notice that within the past few days, they have decided to lock all information except for IMDB Pro users. I do not rely all my information on IMDB, but in case you were wondering. It may not be useful to go to either of the Movie sites I have hyperlinked to you.

[xPOORGUYx]

I agree.
I dont want the bioshock movie to have any part in the 3d craze, besides using 3d would probably use more money.

[Inhale/exhale]

I am agnostic on 3D. Like any other film-making tool it can be used well, it can be used poorly. It could be argued the first person nature of the game might translate very well to a 3D film.

Jerry Bruckheimer is making a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film in 3D that will be released this summer. Even though its not being directed by Verbinski, it might be an interesting test case for for a 3D Bioshock given its water-y, fantastical setting.

Note: I am not saying the two films would be similar, or direct comparisons thematically/ story-wise/content-wise etc, etc. (for one thing, its budgeted at 200M...) just that it could useful to look at how the 3D is used in that film: how does the background detail look? how does the art design come across? Does the "atmosphere" translate? Is it "immersive"?

If I were producing the film, I would think that the potential financial upside to 3D requires at least exploring the option before dismissing it.

[Docmeff]

What they need to do with the Bioshock movie thing is make it a 10 part mini-series on HBO, like True Blood, BoardWalk Empire or Starz' Spartacus.

That would allow them more time to get a great back story in place and the meat of the Bioshock story in there as well. Heck...they could have Season 1 as the whole founding and building of Rapture and Season 2 the actual story of Jack.

I think that would be much more satisfying than an inflated 2.5 hour movie that costs too much money and has to cut too much meaningful story to fit in the time slot. And, if it's on HBO/Starz then it would not make a difference about the rating.

[I-ChooseTheImpossible]

I am agnostic on 3D. Like any other film-making tool it can be used well, it can be used poorly. It could be argued the first person nature of the game might translate very well to a 3D film.

Jerry Bruckheimer is making a fourth Pirates of the Caribbean film in 3D that will be released this summer. Even though its not being directed by Verbinski, it might be an interesting test case for for a 3D Bioshock given its water-y, fantastical setting.

Note: I am not saying the two films would be similar, or direct comparisons thematically/ story-wise/content-wise etc, etc. (for one thing, its budgeted at 200M...) just that it could useful to look at how the 3D is used in that film: how does the background detail look? how does the art design come across? Does the "atmosphere" translate? Is it "immersive"?

If I were producing the film, I would think that the potential financial upside to 3D requires at least exploring the option before dismissing it.

3D is a simple fad that people are crazy about because of the success of Avatar, I admire Nolan who has sad who won't be using it for The Dark Knight Rises I believe, it is not needed and the majority of films that do use 3D us it poorly.

[Inhale/exhale]

Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorcese, Tarsem Singh, Steven Soderbergh, Martin Campbell, Tim Burton, Robert Rodriguez, Henry Selick, James Cameron, Kenneth Branagh, Ang Lee... might all disagree with the "3D is a fad" comment.

I'm not trying to be rah-rah 3D here. As previously stated I believe there are drawbacks to using it. Sight unseen, I think I would agree with you that 2D would be a better way to go for this film. But, I'm not going to flatly rule out that someone could make a great 3D Bioshock, if they used it well.

[Inhale/exhale]

That would allow them more time to get a great back story in place and the meat of the Bioshock story in there as well. Heck...they could have Season 1 as the whole founding and building of Rapture and Season 2 the actual story of Jack.

That kind of a split occurred to me also, you could film it all together and then structure the story like Kill Bill, with everything up thru Andrew Ryan in the first film, and the rest up to Fontaine in the second film. But then you run the risk of the first film tanking or underperforming, and having a sequel in the can for a film that didn't make money at the box office. Big risk to take.

[Docmeff]

That kind of a split occurred to me also, you could film it all together and then structure the story like Kill Bill, with everything up thru Andrew Ryan in the first film, and the rest up to Fontaine in the second film. But then you run the risk of the first film tanking or underperforming, and having a sequel in the can for a film that didn't make money at the box office. Big risk to take.

Right, but I'm speaking of a mini-series like on HBO. Bioshock season one starts off with Andrew Ryan sailing the ocean and looking for a place to build Rapture. Then it would show a couple of episodes of him building Rapture, fast forward then to him picking society's "best" from around the world. Then finish the season with some episodes of Rapture during its peak, the discovery of Adam, the corruption starting to set in with the Mob element and the final episode of season one would be the New Year's party 1959.

Season two would start with the plane crash and our hero Jack's entrance to Rapture. Season two would be his story and the fall of Andrew Ryan.

Season three would be the Altruistic Dr. Lamb story. Each season would be 10-13 episodes. I bet it would be real successful. Just like True Blood, Boardwalk Empire, Spartacus, etc. This way you can experience the true story of Rapture without having to squeeze it into an over-budgeted 2.5 hour movie that should be Rated R, but gets knocked to a PG-13 to entice more box office sales. I think a movie is too restraining...put this thing in an awesome HBO/Starz Mini-series.

[Ryans Rapture]

Right, but I'm speaking of a mini-series like on HBO. Bioshock season one starts off with Andrew Ryan sailing the ocean and looking for a place to build Rapture. Then it would show a couple of episodes of him building Rapture, fast forward then to him picking society's "best" from around the world. Then finish the season with some episodes of Rapture during its peak, the discovery of Adam, the corruption starting to set in with the Mob element and the final episode of season one would be the New Year's party 1959.

Season two would start with the plane crash and our hero Jack's entrance to Rapture. Season two would be his story and the fall of Andrew Ryan.

Season three would be the Altruistic Dr. Lamb story. Each season would be 10-13 episodes. I bet it would be real successful. Just like True Blood, Boardwalk Empire, Spartacus, etc. This way you can experience the true story of Rapture without having to squeeze it into an over-budgeted 2.5 hour movie that should be Rated R, but gets knocked to a PG-13 to entice more box office sales. I think a movie is too restraining...put this thing in an awesome HBO/Starz Mini-series.

I totally think this is an awesome idea. If they did, it should have a "Lost" essence to it. Perhaps the same directors?

[xPOORGUYx]

I have a bad feeling for how a fontaine fight would look in a movie
I hope they get it right

[Ryans Rapture]

It would seem that both of my "Movie Websites" are unreliable as of now. So if anyone can please find/inform me of another site that will be a quick reference to people on some Bioshock info. Please post about it here, so it can be shared with the community. Thank you, for if nothing get's posted soon. I may just delete both of them, seeing as they really aren't helping anyone anymore.

(Movie Chronicles never really helped anyone in the first place, but still.... )

[xPOORGUYx]

would IGN work as a reliable website?

[Zvriel Chkies]

Right, but I'm speaking of a mini-series like on HBO. Bioshock season one starts off with Andrew Ryan sailing the ocean and looking for a place to build Rapture. Then it would show a couple of episodes of him building Rapture, fast forward then to him picking society's "best" from around the world. Then finish the season with some episodes of Rapture during its peak, the discovery of Adam, the corruption starting to set in with the Mob element and the final episode of season one would be the New Year's party 1959.

Season two would start with the plane crash and our hero Jack's entrance to Rapture. Season two would be his story and the fall of Andrew Ryan.

Season three would be the Altruistic Dr. Lamb story. Each season would be 10-13 episodes. I bet it would be real successful. Just like True Blood, Boardwalk Empire, Spartacus, etc. This way you can experience the true story of Rapture without having to squeeze it into an over-budgeted 2.5 hour movie that should be Rated R, but gets knocked to a PG-13 to entice more box office sales. I think a movie is too restraining...put this thing in an awesome HBO/Starz Mini-series.

That could be good. But it could also be freaking tedious. Most HBO shows are are boring and dragged out.

But so long as they kept some of the people who wrote garbage like True Blood out of it, it should be fine.

A series would be good, a chance to add more details. and make it more like the games.

If it was like Lost it would be good. Lost is awesome.

If they made it less Bioshock and more boring it would be terrible.

So long as it avoided the horrors that series like The Event and Flashforward turned into.

They are horrendous. They move at a snails pace, and barely anything happens or is said at their fastest.

So long as it did not have too much Bioshock 1 in and too little Bioshock 2 it would be good.

[Ryans Rapture]

@PoorGuy
I'm afraid IGN is not a suitable website for checking in on Bioshock Movie info. Although it has several articles explaining much info, it does not have a central database that wil explain all of their articles info on one page. Thanks for trying to help though. (Honestly, I'm not being sarcastic, not a lot of people have treid helping on that yet!)

Update ------ New article on the front page, explaining why Bioshock movie did not get off the ground. Basically a re-cap for people who have already read the other info, but great for people who do not know much about the movie yet.

[Epstein_The_Swami]

Gore Verbinski's explanation as to why things aren't really coming together.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STcOA...&feature=feedu

He sounds like he really wanted it to be true - R rating is a must, he says. Needs to be pulled off properly. I'm glad he's got that mindset about him, even if the state of the film looks a tad bleak.

It's a shame that money is pretty much the sole hurdle that's making or breaking this, but for me it's really just "If it happens, it happens; if it doesn't, it doesn't."

I won't mind Verbinski taking the helm if it does end up seeing light, though.

[Ryans Rapture]

A very kind thanks to you Mr. Swami. Your name will be updated on the front page as the founder of this video.

As well as I couldnt have put what you said any better, except the part about "If it happens, it happens". Because I REALLY want this to happen.