I firmly believe that video games can provide great material to make superb films just as books do. The problem is that either poor original material is chosen, just like with books, or that the adaptation process is rubbish, just like any other source material.

However that argument holds no water when you hear of Hollywood spending millions to get the names of video games like Asteroids to adapt for film. Yes Asteroids, I mean what is there in that game to make into a film?

Frankly nothing at all. It's clear what the studio are doing, they're going after the name of the product, Asteroids, and if they can get that name then they'll just attach any script to it and make a film. After all it doesn't have anything to live up to does it? It's not like Asteroids the video game has any back story or deep plot, or like so many others, a whole universe to stay true to.

So the world from The Hollywood Reporter through /Film is that Universal have won a bidding war in order to get the rights to get the name, something they've done a couple of times already with the Hasbro games, just like Battleships.

Lorenzo di Bonaventura is the producer behind it, you'll recognise his name for many big blockbusters, and Matthew Lopez is set to write. He's come through the Disney writing program and has just re-written The Sorcerer's Apprentice.

I don't hold out much hope though, put the title to the side for the moment, and we're going to see Lopez come up with a brand new script, all he has to tie him down is the fact that there has to be something about ships blasting asteroids to hell.

Still, why are Universal so willing to spend money on such a name to attract in an audience? I mean it's not like the title Transformers or Halo, they are brand names that bring a huge audience with great anticipation, but Asteroids?