Paramount’s Call of Duty movie just locked one name that actually gives me hope

This Call of Duty movie news matters for one reason: the script might actually have teeth. Paramount and Activision are targeting a 2028 release with Peter Berg directing, but the detail too many people glossed over is Taylor Sheridan writing. If you’ve wanted a CoD story with genuine moral complexity instead of just boom-and-glory montage, this is the first sign we might actually get it.

Key Takeaways

• Taylor Sheridan (Sicario, Hell or High Water, Wind River, Yellowstone) is the writer – that’s the needle-mover.
• Peter Berg (Lone Survivor, Patriots Day, yes, also Battleship) will handle the boots-on-ground action.
• Paramount is invoking its “Top Gun: Maverick-level rigor,” but tone and rating (PG-13 vs. R) will decide how honest this gets.
• Expect a Modern Warfare-style angle; the brand needs focus, not a greatest-hits anthology.

Breaking Down the Announcement

Paramount has struck a deal with Activision to finally push a Call of Duty film into production, aiming roughly at 2028. On paper, that’s wild – we’ve had CoD since 2003, hundreds of millions of copies sold, and yet no big-screen adaptation stuck. There were past flirtations (remember when Stefano Sollima, who did Sicario 2, circled the brand years ago?), but nothing crossed the line. Now Paramount’s making it official with Peter Berg in the director’s chair and, crucially, Taylor Sheridan writing.

Paramount’s messaging nods to the Top Gun: Maverick playbook – “uncompromising excellence,” practical intensity, respect for the fan base. That’s encouraging, but the usual movie-studio promise means little without the right creative spine. CoD can’t just be a loud war movie; the genre’s bar is already set by 1917, Black Hawk Down, Zero Dark Thirty, and Berg’s own Lone Survivor. The adaptation has to justify itself as Call of Duty, not War Movie #389.

The Real Story: Taylor Sheridan’s Pen

This caught my attention because Sheridan doesn’t write empty action. Sicario wasn’t afraid to stare into the abyss of institutional rot and ask uncomfortable questions about who gets to draw moral lines. Hell or High Water buried empathy inside a crime story. Wind River blended procedure with grief. On TV, Yellowstone and its spin-offs, Mayor of Kingstown, and even the pulpier Tulsa King all carry that obsession with consequence — violence always costs something.

That’s precisely what Call of Duty’s campaigns often flirt with but rarely commit to. Think of Modern Warfare’s “All Ghillied Up” — the tension and patience of a sniper story with stakes beyond explosions — or the controversy around Modern Warfare 2019’s sanitizing of the “Highway of Death.” The series wants the grit, but it also wants to keep things broadly palatable. Sheridan is the rare mainstream writer who can deliver tactical clarity and moral ambiguity at the same time. If Activision truly wants to “meet the franchise’s exceptionally high expectations,” letting Sheridan push into uncomfortable territory is the way.

There’s a fascinating irony here: years ago the brand flirted with a Sicario-adjacent director; now it’s got the original Sicario writer. That leans me toward expecting a Modern Warfare-style narrative — task forces, gray ops, plausible deniability — instead of the conspiracy pulp of Black Ops. And honestly? That’s the smarter play for a first film. Anchoring around an elite unit with a grounded mission gives the movie a spine, whether or not they use names like Price, Soap, or Ghost.

Why This Matters Now

We’re in a new era where game adaptations aren’t a punchline. The Last of Us proved you can chase awards and audience. Fallout showed you can be messy, fun, and faithful. Sonic exploded at the box office — and that’s already a Paramount feather. The difference-maker isn’t just money; it’s perspective. A CoD film without a point of view is a glorified sizzle reel. A CoD film written by Sheridan might actually say something about modern warfare — the compromises, the bureaucrats, the operators who carry the weight after the credits roll.

The tension is obvious: a four-quadrant studio wants maximum reach, which usually means PG-13. Sheridan’s best work breathes at R. Top Gun: Maverick was thrilling but clean; CoD isn’t clean. If this ends up sanded down into a recruitment-ad sheen, fans will smell it from the lobby. If they trust Sheridan to keep it raw, the adaptation could finally break the “spectacle over soul” curse.

What Gamers Should Watch For

• Rating: PG-13 signals safe spectacle; R suggests they’ll let Sheridan bite.
• Sub-brand focus: Modern Warfare is the best launchpad. A franchise mash-up would dilute the identity.
• Fidelity vs. originality: Familiar faces (Price, Ghost) are catnip, but an original task force might give Sheridan more freedom.
• Action philosophy: Berg can stage visceral, tactile set pieces (Lone Survivor, Deepwater Horizon). If they lean into practical effects and coherent geography, that’s a win.
• Tone: Will the script interrogate the cost of violence, or just high-five it? That choice defines this movie’s legacy.
• Timeline: 2028 is far off; creative direction can change. Follow who’s behind the camera and who’s editing the script after Sheridan.

As someone who’s played every Modern Warfare since 2007, I don’t need a greatest-hits parade. Give me a tightly scoped op gone sideways, a commander making a bad call for the “right” reasons, and a finale that sticks the landing without a cutscene stinger begging for a universe. If Sheridan actually writes that movie, Call of Duty on the big screen might be more than a brand exercise.

TL;DR

Paramount’s Call of Duty film finally has momentum, but the meaningful news is Taylor Sheridan writing. If they let him keep the moral gray and go harder than PG-13 gloss, we could get a grounded, Modern Warfare-style thriller that respects the audience. If not, expect a loud, forgettable firefight.