6700 réponses à ce sujet

[Eternal Density]

Wow, this thread hasn't changed at all in the last few months. Just as I expected.

I just realised something: TRON Legacy is a big CGI + Live Action movie connected strongly to the subject of video games. So in a sense it's a video game movie, though not quite in the traditional sense. Hopefully it will be a huge success and will raise public opinions of films that relate to video games, improving the atmosphere the Mass Effect movie will enter.

I_M_Krogan wrote...
I found Jacob Taylor. He goes to my college. 

He should totally try sneaking into an audition for the part.
Heavy risk...

Modifié par Eternal Density, 29 novembre 2010 - 05:52 .

[Zujilin]

Why you think that a Mass Effect movie must have Shepard?
For me Mass Effect is a great universe, rich of planets, races, stories, heros and bastards. Shepard is a great man, but only a man in a great universe.
Exactly as Star Wars, KOTOR had not, Luke and Anakyn Skywalker but was as Star Wars as great.
For me Mass Effect have much story to tell through movie, book and spin'off during and after the main trilogy.
Sorry for in my poor english.

Modifié par Zujilin, 29 novembre 2010 - 10:41 .

[I_M_Krogan]

Eternal Density wrote...

Wow, this thread hasn't changed at all in the last few months. Just as I expected.

I just realised something: TRON Legacy is a big CGI + Live Action movie connected strongly to the subject of video games. So in a sense it's a video game movie, though not quite in the traditional sense. Hopefully it will be a huge success and will raise public opinions of films that relate to video games, improving the atmosphere the Mass Effect movie will enter.

I_M_Krogan wrote...
I found Jacob Taylor. He goes to my college. 

He should totally try sneaking into an audition for the part.
Heavy risk...

But the priiiiiiiiiiiiize....

[VaillainRath]

Well Im stocked that there making a movie. I think Bruce Willis would make a good commander Shepard or maybe Johny Depp. I have just one question will Shepard be a bad ass or the kind savior of the galaxy.

[Omega-202]

Tarahiro wrote...

They should make the movie with familiar characters and locations but not about Shepard.

See, it's like when you start off with a book that then becomes a movie. The main characters looks in the movie are the interpratation of the director, when we might read the book and imagine them looking different. Its the same with Mass Effect.

When we start a game, we customise our Shep the way we want her/him to look. If the movie had a male Shep played by whatever actor, that is how people would assume Shep is supposed to be.

So it shouldn't be about Shep, just the world and other characters.

And yet, in the top 20 highest grossing movies of all time, we have 3 Lord of the Rings adaptations and 5 Harry Potter adaptations.

Nobody seemed to complain that their image of the main characters was so massively different that it ruined the movie.  Adaptations make more money than spin-offs.  Its a tried and true fact.  Legendary would be idiots to think that "people" would be upset for establishing their version of Shepard, just as Warner Brothers would have been idiots for making a Harry Potter movie without Harry for fear that they ruin people's image of Harry.  

[npbh]

Well since im quite sure there isnt a "canon" shepard and thats what bioware wants(atleast i think i remember reading this). Which makes it highly unlikely that they would make a movie with shepard, they might mention shepard by name like they did in the books but doubt shepard would make an apperance in the movie.

Modifié par npbh, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:22 .

[Tarahiro]

Yes but in LOTR and Harry Potter, the book at least describes what gender they are.

[Zujilin]

Omega-202 wrote...

Tarahiro wrote...

They should make the movie with familiar characters and locations but not about Shepard.

See, it's like when you start off with a book that then becomes a movie. The main characters looks in the movie are the interpratation of the director, when we might read the book and imagine them looking different. Its the same with Mass Effect.

When we start a game, we customise our Shep the way we want her/him to look. If the movie had a male Shep played by whatever actor, that is how people would assume Shep is supposed to be.

So it shouldn't be about Shep, just the world and other characters.

And yet, in the top 20 highest grossing movies of all time, we have 3 Lord of the Rings adaptations and 5 Harry Potter adaptations.

Nobody seemed to complain that their image of the main characters was so massively different that it ruined the movie.  Adaptations make more money than spin-offs.  Its a tried and true fact.  Legendary would be idiots to think that "people" would be upset for establishing their version of Shepard, just as Warner Brothers would have been idiots for making a Harry Potter movie without Harry for fear that they ruin people's image of Harry.  

is different because characters as harry potter and the lord of the rings are static characters, because they are harnessed in the page of their books. If i go to cinema for see the lord of rings is for see as another person (director) has immagined the characters that i've immagined i when i've read the books  .
A videogame is not static. Moreover  i've not nothing against a different interpretation of my Shepard, I do not give nothing of it if he is different form my game. But for me a movie on Mass Effect can be an opportunity for tell other in this fantastic universe exactly as have the books, that revolve around to other characters and protagonists.

[Omega-202]

npbh wrote...

Well since im quite sure there isnt a "canon" shepard and thats what bioware wants(atleast i think i remember reading this). Which makes it highly unlikely that they would make a movie with shepard, they might mention shepard by name like they did in the books but doubt shepard would make an apperance in the movie.

Casey Hudson said that they'd "avoid" establishing a canon Shepard as best as possible.  They never promised that they wouldn't.

For example, in the new comic, they established Udina as the canon human Council member.  They're not afraid of making these choices IF they're important to the project that is being worked on.  Its a very easy "slippery slope" now that they've already established one of the MAJOR choices with a canon version.  

EDIT:  As a general point, can someone name me a "spin-off" film that is comparably successful to an "adaptation" film?  

As in, has there been any movie that has taken a source material and based its story in that source material's "expanded universe" and done just as well as the INCREDIBLY successful adaptation movies out there?  

The fact is that there aren't any.  Adaptations make better movies than spin-offs.  

Modifié par Omega-202, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:44 .

[npbh]

has there actually been a movie before where the rights werent just sold off and the studio just made it with barely any input ? :/

[Zujilin]

Omega-202 wrote...

npbh wrote...

Well since im quite sure there isnt a "canon" shepard and thats what bioware wants(atleast i think i remember reading this). Which makes it highly unlikely that they would make a movie with shepard, they might mention shepard by name like they did in the books but doubt shepard would make an apperance in the movie.

Casey Hudson said that they'd "avoid" establishing a canon Shepard as best as possible.  They never promised that they wouldn't.

For example, in the new comic, they established Udina as the canon human Council member.  They're not afraid of making these choices IF they're important to the project that is being worked on.  Its a very easy "slippery slope" now that they've already established one of the MAJOR choices with a canon version.  

EDIT:  As a general point, can someone name me a "spin-off" film that is comparably successful to an "adaptation" film?  

As in, has there been any movie that has taken a source material and based its story in that source material's "expanded universe" and done just as well as the INCREDIBLY successful adaptation movies out there?  

The fact is that there aren't any.  Adaptations make better movies than spin-offs.  

no? Blade Runner the movie is based, but is different from the book and the fantastic  videogame is different from movie and from book in turn.
edit: ah
kotor is a perfect example of spin'off (with different characters and
settings but the same universe) from Star Wars and can not be said to be
a brand with little success, unlike other games that have stuck true to
the setting and its using the same characters from the films.

Modifié par Zujilin, 29 novembre 2010 - 07:57 .

[Omega-202]

Zujilin wrote...
no? Blade Runner the movie is based, but is different from the book and the fantastic  videogame is different from movie and from book in turn.
edit: ah
kotor is a perfect example of spin'off (with different characters and
settings but the same universe) from Star Wars and can not be said to be
a brand with little success, unlike other games that have stuck true to
the setting and its using the same characters from the films.

The Blade Runner film doesn't account for the "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" in continuity.  Its not like it was in the same universe.  It was just a REALLY loose adaptation.  

And I was asking for a FILM that was a spin-off.  KotOR is a great example of a spin-off, but it was a product sold to a niche market.  Videogames don't have to have the same impact and appeal as the more mainstream media forms do.  

Give me a main stream media success that was a spin off of a niche media success.  
On the flip side, I can give you hundreds of main stream media successes that were ADAPTATIONS of niche media successes.  

[Zujilin]

Omega-202 wrote...
KotOR is a great example of a spin-off, but it was a product sold to a niche market.  Videogames don't have to have the same impact and appeal as the more mainstream media forms do.  

Give me a main stream media success that was a spin off of a niche media success.  
On the flip side, I can give you hundreds of main stream media successes that were ADAPTATIONS of niche media successes.  

Here you have absolutely right.

Modifié par Zujilin, 29 novembre 2010 - 08:29 .

[man_named_dave]

Shepard won't be in the film. It wouldn't make sense because we all have our own Shepard(s) that we identify with, along with the decisions they made. What would be the point, anyway?

[Babli]

man_named_dave wrote...

Shepard won't be in the film. It wouldn't make sense because we all have our own Shepard(s) that we identify with, along with the decisions they made. What would be the point, anyway?

With that logic even launch trailer for ME 2 didnt make sense, because Ashley died on Virmire...and Shep is a woman!

See? I dont think that something like that must put limits into making a movie.

[MillaShepard]

Lets hope it's NOT 3D. that would not add to this movie for me.

[Omega-202]

man_named_dave wrote...

Shepard won't be in the film. It wouldn't make sense because we all have our own Shepard(s) that we identify with, along with the decisions they made. What would be the point, anyway?

But the other 50 million movie goers who would need to see this movie to make it a blockbuster summer action flick have never heard of Shepard and most have probably never played a shooter or RPG before.  

The point is that a "Shepard trilogy" based film series would be the best use of the license because:
1.  The script writes itself because the story is established.
2.  Character references are already established.
3.  Concept art, visual style is already established.
4.  The plot is the largest, most impactful possible within the fictional universe (you can't out do a galactic extinction threat)

And sorry to break it to you, but BioWare is already establishing canon decisions.  The new comic declares Udina as the official choice and "Councilor Anderson" as non-existent.  If establishing such choices is such a bad idea, why did they already start doing that?  

[Zurcior]

man_named_dave wrote...

Shepard won't be in the film. It wouldn't make sense because we all have our own Shepard(s) that we identify with, along with the decisions they made. What would be the point, anyway?

Yes, we do have our own Shepards. But that chances nothing. If they put Shepard in the movie, I won't have a problem with it because it's no different than watching the ME trailers and such. If it helps, pretend you are watching someone else's playthrough. 'Cuz that's what it'll practically be(with better graphics).

[Omega-202]

 I have to ask.  
Do people who keep saying "They won't use Shepard" or "They shouldn't use Shepard" actually believe what they are saying, or are they trying to convince themselves that what they're saying is true?  

How could anyone actually believe that?  Do they actually think that Legendary Films wouldn't go ahead with the obvious direction of the film just because a few thousand diehard fans are holding their breath and stomping their feet?  

[sim2er]

Omega-202 wrote...

man_named_dave wrote...

Shepard won't be in the film. It wouldn't make sense because we all have our own Shepard(s) that we identify with, along with the decisions they made. What would be the point, anyway?

But the other 50 million movie goers who would need to see this movie to make it a blockbuster summer action flick have never heard of Shepard and most have probably never played a shooter or RPG before.  

The point is that a "Shepard trilogy" based film series would be the best use of the license because:
1.  The script writes itself because the story is established.
2.  Character references are already established.
3.  Concept art, visual style is already established.
4.  The plot is the largest, most impactful possible within the fictional universe (you can't out do a galactic extinction threat)

And sorry to break it to you, but BioWare is already establishing canon decisions.  The new comic declares Udina as the official choice and "Councilor Anderson" as non-existent.  If establishing such choices is such a bad idea, why did they already start doing that?  

they will not use the trilogy because their fanbase would have no reason to see the movie, aka we have already played the game and don't need to see a movie of the story we already know. however, this doesn't eliminate the possibility of a shepard movie, such as a bridge between ME1 and ME2. the movie could also take place between the two games, but not be directly related to them.

the movie could easily be a prequel to the first game, or sequel to the last game. any of these possibilities could happen and include sheperd. they also generally cause only minimal problems with story conflict.

to adress the issue of "but i picked a different _" could say that the movie is a "what if?" scenario. for example, lets say my sheperd was born on earth as an orphan (earthborn), but by chance was killed before the events of ME1. (or some other accident befalls the "real" sheperd, thus undoing the game events) then sheperd's brother (who he didn't know about because he was living on the streets on earth) survives instead and then BAM you have a fresh non-canon conflict sheperd for the movie! (what if the real sheperd didn't exist, but guy B steps up and runs the show, so to speak)

[Omega-202]

sim2er wrote...

they will not use the trilogy because their fanbase would have no reason to see the movie, aka we have already played the game and don't need to see a movie of the story we already know. however, this doesn't eliminate the possibility of a shepard movie, such as a bridge between ME1 and ME2. the movie could also take place between the two games, but not be directly related to them.

That's completely not true.  
Did fans of "The Lord of the Rings" not go and see the movies?
Did fans of "Harry Potter" or "Twilight" not go see the movies?  

Where are you coming up with that conclusion?  If anything, its exactly the opposite.  

Also, there were 2 weeks between the end of Mass Effect 1 and the opening "Normandy Under Attack" cinematic at the beginning of ME 2.  What kind of a movie could you make with that?  That's just not going to happen.

the movie could easily be a prequel to the first game, or sequel to the last game. any of these possibilities could happen and include sheperd. they also generally cause only minimal problems with story conflict.

to adress the issue of "but i picked a different _" could say that the movie is a "what if?" scenario. for example, lets say my sheperd was born on earth as an orphan (earthborn), but by chance was killed before the events of ME1. (or some other accident befalls the "real" sheperd, thus undoing the game events) then sheperd's brother (who he didn't know about because he was living on the streets on earth) survives instead and then BAM you have a fresh non-canon conflict sheperd for the movie! (what if the real sheperd didn't exist, but guy B steps up and runs the show, so to speak)

A prequel to ME1 during what conflict?  There were no major wars for Humanity to fight.  There were no major engagements to carry a movie.  The First Contact "War" was a few weeks, 2 major engagements, fewer than 2000 casualties and most of the fighting happened between ships.  The Skyllian Blitz was a defensive engagement that was over once the space "cavalry" arrived.  

There's nothing to carry a movie and there is NO bigger story than the Reaper Invasion.  Any sequel would simply be overshadowed by "Oh wow this bad, but honestly after nearly having all sentient life wiped out, it should be pretty easy".  

[Elishiva]

I 've seen the origenal tron and Iliked it backthen but that was then and this is now and playing Mas effect myself I feel that it dose has alot of Galixy and story to be a great movie and I agree Bruce Willis would make a great commander Sheapered I'm stoked just as everyone is your friend Elishia

[Lasien]

KentGoldings wrote...

Erica Cerra for Ashley.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1569714/

YEEEEEEESSSSSS! please? Go Eureka!

Just don't have shepard in it in any capacity beyond perhaps a few offhand mentions of the tragedies on akuze, and the other places... (can't remember the names) and no reference as to who was there. Make it a prequel and just avoid shepard altogether. I like the idea to have it be about the first contact war, though, so just make it good, Bioware!

Also, if the voice actors for the characters look enough like the characters, have them play them, at least in cameos

Aaaaannnnd....

I Vote For the Matriarch Benezia!!!

[Lasien]

Omega-202 wrote...

sim2er wrote...

they will not use the trilogy because their fanbase would have no reason to see the movie, aka we have already played the game and don't need to see a movie of the story we already know. however, this doesn't eliminate the possibility of a shepard movie, such as a bridge between ME1 and ME2. the movie could also take place between the two games, but not be directly related to them.

That's completely not true.  
Did fans of "The Lord of the Rings" not go and see the movies?
Did fans of "Harry Potter" or "Twilight" not go see the movies?  

Where are you coming up with that conclusion?  If anything, its exactly the opposite.  

Also, there were 2 weeks between the end of Mass Effect 1 and the opening "Normandy Under Attack" cinematic at the beginning of ME 2.  What kind of a movie could you make with that?  That's just not going to happen.

the movie could easily be a prequel to the first game, or sequel to the last game. any of these possibilities could happen and include sheperd. they also generally cause only minimal problems with story conflict.

to adress the issue of "but i picked a different _" could say that the movie is a "what if?" scenario. for example, lets say my sheperd was born on earth as an orphan (earthborn), but by chance was killed before the events of ME1. (or some other accident befalls the "real" sheperd, thus undoing the game events) then sheperd's brother (who he didn't know about because he was living on the streets on earth) survives instead and then BAM you have a fresh non-canon conflict sheperd for the movie! (what if the real sheperd didn't exist, but guy B steps up and runs the show, so to speak)

A prequel to ME1 during what conflict?  There were no major wars for Humanity to fight.  There were no major engagements to carry a movie.  The First Contact "War" was a few weeks, 2 major engagements, fewer than 2000 casualties and most of the fighting happened between ships.  The Skyllian Blitz was a defensive engagement that was over once the space "cavalry" arrived.  

There's nothing to carry a movie and there is NO bigger story than the Reaper Invasion.  Any sequel would simply be overshadowed by "Oh wow this bad, but honestly after nearly having all sentient life wiped out, it should be pretty easy".  

Actually, there was a lot leading up to the first contact war. the  lightspeed research, the discovery of the mass relay (which was a complete accident, so anyone could have done it), trying to figure the relay out, turning it on to discover that we are not alone in the universe, etc... All of that could have been done by accident as well, actually.

Also, did the first contact war start immediately or not, because I don't remember if the turians just attacked or if they decided humanity was a threat first. If they just attacked, then you could sneak a few other races in by having them infiltrate to collect proof of the turians aggression. If it took a while, then all the races would have been met.

[Omega-202]

Lasien wrote...
Actually, there was a lot leading up to the first contact war. the  lightspeed research, the discovery of the mass relay (which was a complete accident, so anyone could have done it), trying to figure the relay out, turning it on to discover that we are not alone in the universe, etc... All of that could have been done by accident as well, actually.

Also, did the first contact war start immediately or not, because I don't remember if the turians just attacked or if they decided humanity was a threat first. If they just attacked, then you could sneak a few other races in by having them infiltrate to collect proof of the turians aggression. If it took a while, then all the races would have been met.

2148- Humanity discovers the Prothean technology on Mars.  The next year they find the Charon Relay.  That's about it until 2157 when the event officially dubbed the "Relay 314 Incident" occurs but is arrogantly called the "First Contact War" by humans.  Where is the conflict during that period?  Where is the "enemy" to conquer?  Where is the struggle to overcome?  

There is none.  Nothing happens.  

So you have 2 discoveries in a 12 month period, a period of peaceful colonization and scientific advancement and then a week long scuffle 8 years later.

Read this for info on the "War" (more like policing action gone wrong):  http://masseffect.wi...rst_Contact_War

If you don't want to read it, a quick summary is:
- Human scouting fleet activates a dormant relay (Relay 314), not knowing they shouldn't because they still think they're the only species out there

- Turian police fleet witnesses this and moves in to stop the Human fleet per Council protocol.  The Turians go a little overboard (probably Turian hot-headedness) and end up destroying the Human fleet.

- Single Human vessel escapes, warns Alliance that there are hostile aliens.  Human retaliatory fleet heads out to Relay 314 and wipes out Turian policing fleet.

- Turian Hierarchy decides to take action and invade Human settlement closest to Relay 314 as retaliation for the destruction of their fleet.  Shanxi falls because its a sparsely populated colony with no real standing defense force.

- Humans retake Shanxi with overwhelming force, surprising the Turians.  Turians gear up for full out war.  The Turians believe that Humanity is like the Rachni or Krogan all over again.  

- The Council steps in and brokers a peace.  600 Humans dead, 1200 Turians dead.  Most probably deaths occurred occur ship-to-ship.  In the end, both sides agree that it was one big misunderstanding and that both sides overreacted.  Humans look ignorant and Turians look pigheaded and arrogant.  Everyone loses.  

According to the Cerberus Daily News, just as many people died in 2 weeks of gang violence on Omega.  Also according to CDN, more people have died in the Garvug rebellion, a relatively small and overall insignificant corporate war.  Can the First Contact War be considered a war when more people died to gang violence or a privateer rebellion?  

Modifié par Omega-202, 04 décembre 2010 - 02:12 .