Given that Grand Theft Auto IV blew away the global retail sales record, a day doesn’t go by that I’m not asked about when it’s going to be made into a movie. Of course, that happens with every best-selling video game. But this isn’t a case of the project veering horribly off track like, say, Halo. Nah, this is something altogether different. 
I’ve learned that Fox Atomic owns the rights to Grand Theft Auto. But to the movie title, not the game. It was, of course, Ron Howard who wrote and directed and starred in the little pic Grand Theft Auto back in 1977 for Roger Corman. So Fox optioned the rights for the Howard/Corman movie title a while back. A studio insider clarifies for me: “Yes, Fox owns the Corman movie. Yes, it has been one of 400 development projects for several years. But they are nowhere on the script. It has certainly not been a front-burner project.” Strangely, the success of the video game hasn’t put any new impetus on the studio to formulate a plan. And it doesn’t matter that a supposed legal settlement over the game/movie/title dictates that Rockstar can’t make a Grand Theft Auto movie or Corman/Howard/Fox a video game out of the title. C’mon, the movie can still shrewdly piggyback off the game’s global branding. Here’s my idea: Fox for old times sake should offer the project to Ron Howard since GTA jump-started his directorial career. Then let him incubate as a producer a new action franchise where The Fast And The Furious meets, say, NASCAR which is always looking for Hollywood tie-ins. And let’s just be thankful that Warner Bros doesn’t own the title or Alan Horn would insist the stunts be done in a Prius…
Grand Theft Auto is one of my favourite game. I have played its vice city version for maore than 8 months and I am playing its san andreas version since 1 year.
You can’t “own” a movie title.
If that was the case, the studios could just make up millions of titles and claim partial ownership on every project that came down the pike.
Sorry, but Rockstar will be well within its rights to make a movie and call it “Grand Theft Auto” as the projects are clearly dissimilar and were created in differnt eras. There’s only so many words in the English language…
That said, I believe Donny Most is an obvious choice for the part of “Roman Belic.”
Easy solution. Rockstar just titles the movie “GTA.” Everyone knows what that means. Teenagers will show up in droves.
Wait a minute. I haven’t seen Howard’s GTA. But isn’t this a completely different work than the popular game? I know in the world of branding and titles one GTA equals another GTA, words and letters all being equal. But come on, and this may come as a shocker, movies are not all a matter of business property. Hollywood makes pictures, not words.
There are actually creative types, like I don’t know, the writers maybe, who determine the actual story line and content of the work and who in this case are decades apart in time and light years apart in storyline, aren’t they? Not that it would matter to any self respecting studio suit, unless they intend to find an audience. Maybe they’ll figure this out after a few market survey reports come in.
Then again maybe the game is a take off on Corman’s film. Nah, they didn’t allow carjacking in films back then.
Give it to Uwe Boll.
Are you seriously clammoring for yet another video game adaptation? There has never been a film genre that uniformly sucks quite as much as this one.
To reiterate what JD said, you can neither own nor copyright a title (although you can’t use a previusly used title if that title has acquired trademark protection – I can’t use the name Raiders of the Lost Ark for my new book since there would be an assumption that it was connected to the Lucas/Spielberg canon). In this case, there would be no assumption that Rockstar’s use of the name Grand Theft Auto for a movie connoted a connection to the decades old, nearly forgotten Corman movie so it would be entitled to use the name for a movie based on the video game.
The backlash against the game was enough, I don’t think a studio will go anywhere near this concept… The PR would be a nightmare!
“…be thankful that Warner Bros doesn’t own the title or Alan Horn would insist the stunts be done in a Prius…”
..AND WITH NO DAMN WOMEN!!!!
Actually, JD, you can own a movie title. At least insofar as you (an MPAA-member studio) can register it with the MPAA, thereby keeping any other MPAA-member studio/distributor from using it.
Making movies from videogames which are simplistic derivatives of iconic movies that tend to inspire.. videogames is.. dare I say it? A crap idea.
Tomb Raider
Silent Hill
Resident Evil
Hitman
Doom
Mortal Kombat
Street Fighter
Throw in Final Fantasy and … whatever else you want, and it’s still the same sorry result.
So Rockstar? Fox? Everybody just stay where you are.
Or if Fox actually owns the rights to the Corman movie (which I can’t believe is actually the case, since Corman would never give up ownership rights and DVD rental sales), they could just re-digitalize Grand Theft Auto (in 3- D maybe) and merge it with Corman’s Death Race 2000, re-cut both and re-issue it for the big screen and rake in a few million dollars. Easy.
Skips all the bullshit with the game-makers and reaps all the benefits.
“…be thankful that Warner Bros doesn’t own the title or Alan Horn would insist the stunts be done in a Prius…”
…AND NO DAMN WOMEN!!!
(And I forgot to add that Ron Howard doesn’t write parts for women to well)
“The backlash against the game was enough, I don’t think a studio will go anywhere near this concept!”
Uh, let’s see:
— Biggest grossing entertainment product EVER;
— Demographic sweet spot (males 19-34);
— Viral videos, heaps of critical praise, SNL Weekend update parodies.
— Game players invest 30 hours minimum to complete all the tasks. Most spend more than that. If I spent that much time investing in a story. Most’ll see the movie on general principle.
A few tut-tuts from Sean Hannity & Co. is going to keep studios away from this property. If they keep the same creative team together (Dan Houser) who created the game, I have no doubt it’ll be a smash.
You can make a movue out of a video game but you have to have a director who knows how to direct it adding the human element into the mix.
Just like many others who have successfully brought life into the movies made from comics, same can be done to Games-Movies
If anyone can do this, is Mr Jackson himself (that’s Peter Jackson for you). Ron Howard for GTA movie? Eem, I think not. Don’t think he can pull it off. Nothing he has directed has impressed me so far.
Anyone but Michael Bay. Then again, he’s a genius. Pure genius. I don’t mean in film-making, but keeping a job in Hollywood.
“Making movies from videogames which are simplistic derivatives of iconic movies that tend to inspire.. videogames is.. dare I say it? A crap idea.”
Why isn’t this obvious to everybody?
JD is correct that one can’t copyright a film title, only register it, which is simply an agreement among participants and affords no legal protection. One may, however, somewhat protect a title by using the Lanham Act after the fact, which prohibits one party from purposely exploiting another party’s valuable name by attaching it to a similar product. So a GTA movie based on the video game might infringe on Corman’s GTA if both are significantly about car theft, speed, and killing. Of course, neither of them is original since they BOTH refer to the statutory crime called Grand Theft Auto. Might as well try to protect the titles Aggravated Assault, Special Circumstances, or Plagiarism.
@JD. you can own a movie title studios do it all the time. it’s why paramount sold the jason vorhees character to new line for JASON GOES TO HELL, JASON X and JASON VS FREDDY and retained the title FRIDAY THE 13TH. you make a movie called RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and watch how fast you get the business end of lucasfilm pointed at you. luke campbell of 2 live crew was originally LUKE SKYYWALKER and lucas shut him down… fast.
they could sidestep it by calling the movie GTA, ROCKSTAR’S GRAND THEFT AUTO or putting the subtitle first (SAN ANDREAS: GRAND THEFT AUTO).
the bigger problem in video game movies is that video games aren’t flooded with games where the criminal is the main character. movies are. so what makes a video game unique isn’t special in a movie. and so many movies have influenced video games and they aren’t even subtle about it. i have a friend who is a die har HALO nerd but in a three minute trailer, HALO would look like ALIENS or STARSHIP TROOPERS. TOMB RAIDER is a second rate INDIANA JONES. RESIDENT EVIL is any zombie movie.
http://www.jamesford.wordpress.com
I don’t buy that you can “own” a movie title. There are multiple unrelated movies with the same title all the time.
And the “backlash” is only from people who never would be interested in the content in the first place. At this point, the franchise is a license to print money – if someone can make a movie version, they will.
one of the appeals of the GTA games is that you get to play a game that allows you to do things you see in movies like Scarface and Goodfellas. heck, the games directly parody and pay homage to those movies. what would be the point of making a movie about a game that takes so much of its material from other movies?
James, you can only “own” a movie title if it is really unique enough, and not just a common phrase.
For example, you can’t trademark a cookie called Chocolate Sandwich Cookie, but you can trademark OREO.
“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkhaban” no, “JASON GOES TO HELL” probably yes.
“Grand theft auto” is an existing phrase commonly used, not something unique that had to be created by a writer. Should be fine to use.
And after all, if “Grand Theft Auto” really stepped on the toes of the Ron Howard movie, wouldn’t they have already taken action when the first video game came out and was a hit?
Well if it wasnt’ for the fact the GTA I (and therefore it’s sequels) was very much inspired by Ron Howards Movie (just read original interviews with the designers of GTA I)..
So there lies the biggest problem, GTA games were based (and publicly announced as such) on Ron Howards movie, so therefore they need to have a license.. The only way to circumvent this is by using another title alltogether.. although I can’t believe a movie based on such a boring game can actually be any good..
Ok folks, I’m an attorney and I assure you that a studio can in fact own a movie title (if you doubt this go look up Woody Allen’s story about why he had to change the title of his film “The Worst Man in the World” to “Deconstructing Harry”… spoiler: someone else owned the title). But that’s not the real issue at play here. This is about TRADEMARKS. “Grand Theft Auto” as the title of a film by Roger Corman became his trademark (so long as the trademark is enforced). Apparently, he sold this trademark to Fox and then at some point, Fox made an agreement with Rockstar that they could use the title for their video game without fear of a trademark suit to defend, but not to make movies.
corman sued rockstar and won punitive damages and right to make only movie called Grand theft Auto. Rockstar guys can never make a movie with that title. Rights under option, from corman to FA. marketing rights are a different issue but rockstar, by kissing the ring, only stands to gain.