6700 réponses à ce sujet

[shumworld]

NICE!!!

[Eternal Density]

I hope they don't stick with John Shepard - not that I have anything against the name John but it's too close to John Shepperd.

(But they'd better keep Shepard. And maybe in a trailer refer to his 'flock')

On the other hand I wouldn't mind Jane Shepard, though it is a little plain. No offence to anyone named Jane (such as my grandmother).

[mopotter]

Marah_Fayne wrote...

Some interesting thoughts from people here who don't seem to know anything about movie-making.

Some points:
1. The movie is not just for you. Bioware loves it's fans and players, but there are not enough of us to pay for a movie. The movie MUST appeal to (potentially) everybody. So, all the calls for a story that sets up or fleshes out the universe, but would obviously only make sense to a player of the game - not going to happen.

2. Movies take years to make and release. All that happened is that a company secured the rights to make a movie based on the ME game/story. No screenplay, no script, no director, no actors, no studio to relese it, no shooting schedule, no music, no editing, no nothing. It won't be out next summer, or even the following. And, if it goes the Halo route, it will languish forever waiting to get a greenlight from studio execs who don't even understand the concept of an RPG game.

3. "Don't use Shepard, because it won't be my Shepard"? Get over yourselves. It never was YOUR Shepard, he (yes, HE) belongs to Bioware, not you, and he must be the star of the movie because he is the "face" and star of the game. I don't understand the people who say they could not watch a character that might behave differently than they would have played him - and trust me, I LOVE these games, I get as lost in them, and Shep, as any of you...but I don't get the ownership issues, sorry.

Disagree totally except for the part where we don't know what's going to happen. 

The day I plunked down money for the game, Shepard became mine.  The day BioWare decided to let the game owner customize Shepards sex, face, hair, and attitude they gave Shepard to us. 

They may decide to go back on that gift of creativity, but I hope they don't. 

I don't think the movie will or should depend on Shepard.  The people who play the game may or may not go see it (I won't if it stars Shepard)  but people who haven't played the game are not going to care whether the story revolves about a character in a video game, or a character from one of the books or even a character that may show up in a future game or book.  They are going to be interested in a good story and BioWare has a lot of good stories that don't involve Shepard as the main character.  Use the name to nod/wink at the players, but leave the character out.

But like all rumors the only one's who know what will really happen are the people at BioWare and they are probably having a good time reading all of our heartfelt cries and disagreements. 

[InvaderErl]

They should just create an original story set in the universe. There's enough room for a different galaxy saving hero to do their thing.

[Marah_Fayne]

massranger wrote...

He can't, he is too worried about droughts in CA... BTW it's been raining for two days, and supposed to rain all week here. lol

Too bad you can't send some of that Arizona's way - Phoenix is pushing 100 this week.


Cast?  

Some are easy - use the VA (Garrus, Miranda, Tali, Anderson, Joker) all good actors in their own right.  Some are hard, Shep being the hardest of all.  The guy from Prison Break looks the most like him, but I don't like him emotionally as Shep, I don't think he can pul it off. 

I heard a suggestion of Michelle Rodriguez for Ashley, that works for me.  Jack? I've seen photoshops of Megan Fox without hair that looked perfect, and Natalie Portman form V for Vendetta, bald, looks the part (and we know she can act crazy).

Liara?  Maybe her VA, heck, maybe even Jennifer Hale as a nod to the femshep fans (I'm amongst them)

Modifié par Marah_Fayne, 27 mai 2010 - 01:56 .

[ODHGABFEye]

why not base the movie on kahlee sanders in acsencion and revalations...the story arcs were brilliant and i could picture them perfectly as a film

[Eternal Density]

InvaderErl wrote...

They should just create an original story set in the universe. There's enough room for a different galaxy saving hero to do their thing.

No there isn't.

"Ah yes, 'Reapers'.  The immortal race of sentient starships allegedly waiting in dark space until such a time as they are unleashed on the galaxy to plunder all sentient life, prompting a band of heroes to come together and fight to find a slim chance of stopping them and saving the entire galaxy.  We have ignored this claim and made a movie about something else."
[edit]Again, it's way too early to think about casting of the ME2 characters.  Not that it isn't fun to speculate, of course.

Modifié par Eternal Density, 27 mai 2010 - 02:08 .

[InvaderErl]

Eternal Density wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

They should just create an original story set in the universe. There's enough room for a different galaxy saving hero to do their thing.

No there isn't.

"Ah yes, 'Reapers'.  The immortal race of sentient starships allegedly waiting in dark space until such a time as they are unleashed on the galaxy to plunder all sentient life, prompting a band of heroes to come together and fight to find a slim chance of stopping them and saving the entire galaxy.  We have ignored this claim and made a movie about something else."
[edit]Again, it's way too early to think about casting of the ME2 characters.  Not that it isn't fun to speculate, of course.

I honestly don't see how you can believe that. I sure hope the ME series can stand without the reapers as the centerpiece or this sucker won't have any longevity at all.

The games can be about the Reapers as they always have been and the movies can be some other threat.

The movie going audience (the general audience - the one that makes studios $$$) won't have expectations dictated to them by the game series.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 27 mai 2010 - 02:12 .

[TheWhiteRice]

A couple of things that this movie must adhere to in order to be good. Please read this:

1) No Shepard! No ME1! This movie should be it's own story arc seperate from the trilogy. The trilogy is Shepard's story. Movies based on video games always suck because, they basically rewrite the entire story and crush everyone's hopes and dreams. An example of this is the Resident Evil movies which are all bad in my opinion because, of the character Alice. I want to see a brand new plot with a new conflict and not the same thing I spent 72 hours on condensed into 2-3 hours. Plus Shepard is what the player wants him/her to be. He's can be a paragon or renegade and a Male or Female. Having Shepard in the movie would just ruin everthing. Though Shepard can be mentioned in the movie, he is quite famous in the ME universe.

2) The plot needs to be ambigous to Shepard's decisions. Plain and simple.

3) It should feature a lot of the characters we all know and love within the games. Their character models already look exactly like their voice actors in real life. Seth Green, Keith David, Liz Sroka and Martin Sheen would be awesome for this movie. Characters like Ash and Kaiden obviously wouldn't work. As for the others like Tali and Garrus it would be alright if it's set between ME1 and ME2. If it's between ME2 and ME3 I suppose it could be a exception because, basically everyone can die and we could assume they surive and they are just great characters.

4) The balance between the familiar and unfamiliar. The movie should feature things that we can instantly reconize from the games. Locations like the citadel are perfect for this. Though most of the plot should be set in area new to the series or a place that was alluded to within the games. We should mostly see familiar elements within the game such as the Alliance and the Spectres but, it would be great to see how a turian military operates. We should also have an antagonist that we are familiar with such as the geth. Maybe not as the main antagonist but, the geth are a huge part of Mass Effect. But obviously it should be in no way alien to what Mass Effect is from the way everthing looks to the music.

5) Special Effects. This movie shouldn't get too heavy on the CGI effects. Obviously something like the citadel and a space battle will use CGI. But if you look back to the star wars prequels they made all three movies entirely with a blue screen. It made those movies look sterile and unrealistic. The use of really good sets can give the movie a much needed grittiness.

6) Immersion. Not everyone knows what Mass Effect is. A good solution to this is a character that the viewer can relate to. If we don't breifly explain things to people who don't know Mass Effect, no one is going to know what the hell is going on.

7) The plot is more important than the action. This is Mass Effect and this is a Bioware product.

8) Watch the filmakers like a hawk. Filmakers have a tendency to do whatever they want (Trust me I know, I am one). We see this with The Shining film which was a different plot from the novel and turned out to be one of Stephen King's biggest disapointment. Though let the filmmakers make their film just as long as the follow the rules of what Mass Effect should be.

9) Don't do anything gimmicky and/or cheesy like slow motion.

[mopotter]

massranger wrote...

mopotter wrote...

massranger wrote...

Ok, for those that think you should not include Shep:

Just because they go a certain direction with Shep doesn't mean it would impact your game, or the Story you created. If you played a certain way, and made your Shep a certain way, then it might be interesting to see someone elses take on Shep. We might see how the people at Bioware play Shep when they play, or see the way the screenwriter played. They can change just enough of the original story to make it great for everyone, even people that played in multiple ways.

look at the new star trek movie... was a good movie, and they kept a very similar storyline as the original, but changed how the characters got to where they eventually ended up. Whats not to say that do something similar here? I think Shep at the very least should have cameo, if not a larger part.

Sorry, disagree Not about the star trek move - I'm a fan.  But the idea.    Star trek was a tv show - with Kirk, Spock  and the rest of the crew all set in permenent icon status.  The movie was Kirk, Spock and the rest of the crew, just younger.  At no time could the viewer (me)  change anything about Kirk.  He was who he was and no click of the button would make him Ms. Kirk or change his attitude. 

I controle Shepard.  I decide what will be the road traveled, what reaction will be displayed.  I do not want to see Shepard in any shape or form.  I don't want to see Sally Shepard or Tom Shepard, not as a cadet and not as a retired General sitting on a porch drinking a beer with his buddy.  My Shepard is not the same as your Shepard. and not the same Shepard as BioWare would turn out.  So I really hope they leave Shepard out of the movie.  Maybe mention the name maybe see a figure in the distance, one that you can't tell is male or female, one that will leave the game sacred and personal, as it should be. 

I get what you mean, and I understand, and I am not even saying that I want Shepard in or out.  I think the movie could be good either way.  But the movie does not have to be associated with my game, your game, or anyone's game.  The movie can be separate telling of great story.  

I think non-fans and fans should give it a chance either way, watch it with an open mind, and then judge it.  Bottom line, I forget who said it, but Shepard is this franchise and will most likely be included.  I have read both books, and they are both good.  I agree that revelation would make a great movie, but I still think a movie based on shepard can be great regardless of our preconceptions.

What I meant about Star Trek was how the story was tweaked a bit.  Like Kirk's dad dieing when he was born, and how Spoc and Kirk hated eachother first.  I am not suggesting that Mass Effect start by going throuh a black hole, just that with some creativity it can be done.

What I want from the movie does not have to do with including Shepard or not to including him, just a solid story that is visually captivating.  Just a movie that fans and non fans will enjoy.  The Mass Effect universe is large enough for them to go any direction, and they will go the direction that they feel will make the most entertaining movie.  Because I tell you right I will see it, and if it's good then my wife won't complain that brought her along.

An open mind?  And let all sorts of things in my mind.  I don't think so.  <_<  it might make my brain explode.  Messy.

My reason for thinking Shepard is not a necessary part of the movie is pretty much because the only ones who allready know Sheaprd are the gamers.  

Someone who never played the game isn't going to know who Shepard is and isn't going to care.  They will be,  I agree, looking for a good story and BioWare has lots of good stories.  So, unless they want to include the ME1 "sex sceen" and have Fox review it before they see the movie,there is no real reason to make the story Shepards.  

I have so much invested in my game Shepard and plan to invest more with ME3,  I won't enjoy or pay to see a movie with Shepard in it.   It would bring back bad memories, like reading the book Beast Master by Andre Norton and then seeing the movie and not recognizing anything except the ferrets.

it will be interesting to see what comes of it.  


 

[Eternal Density]

InvaderErl wrote...

Eternal Density wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

They should just create an original story set in the universe. There's enough room for a different galaxy saving hero to do their thing.

No there isn't.

"Ah yes, 'Reapers'.  The immortal race of sentient starships allegedly waiting in dark space until such a time as they are unleashed on the galaxy to plunder all sentient life, prompting a band of heroes to come together and fight to find a slim chance of stopping them and saving the entire galaxy.  We have ignored this claim and made a movie about something else."
[edit]Again, it's way too early to think about casting of the ME2 characters.  Not that it isn't fun to speculate, of course.

I honestly don't see how you can believe that. I sure hope the ME series can stand without the reapers as the centerpiece or this sucker won't have any longevity at all.

The games can be about the Reapers as they always have been and the movies can be some other threat.

The movie going audience (the general audience - the one that makes studios $$$) won't have expectations dictated to them by the game series.

What I really meant was that no other threat would be as big.  Can they really come up with another pangalactic threat?  Before the Reapers there was the Krogan Rebellions (which was stopped by the Salarians) and before that was the Racni Wars (stopped by the Krogan) (and likely started by the Reapers).  Given the status of humans at the beginning of ME1 I don't think they have saved the whole galaxy from a threat before now (or if they did, it must have been small in scale because no one seems to know about it, which doesn't make any sense at all).  So that leaves us with smaller threats (such as a threat to just humanity like the First Contact Wars) or something post ME3, which doesn't makes sense either.

[InvaderErl]

Make the movie well and it doesn't need to be about the Reapers.

Was Casino Royale about a galaxy ending threat? No and people loved it.

Was The Dark Knight about the end of the world? No.

Make a well told plot and the audience won't give a lick about Reapers or galactic extinctions.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 27 mai 2010 - 02:38 .

[Dan the Man with a Plan]

InvaderErl wrote...

Make the movie well and it doesn't need to be about the Reapers.

Was Casino Royale about a galaxy ending threat? No and people loved it.

Was The Dark Knight about the end of the world? No.

Make a well told plot and the audience won't give a lick about Reapers or galactic extinctions.

Different generas

[Lord Zathule]

I hope someone has already written this, but I am going to write it just in case some of you haven't realized this:

Bioware didn't sell the film writes for the entire Mass Effect universe. They only sold the film writes for the first game.

That means people this is going to be all about Commander Shepard. This is not going to be some prequel to the Mass Effect series. This is NOT going to be about the first contact, or the Rachni war, or the Krogan rebellion, or ME2

This film is going to follow the main plot line of the first Mass Effect game.

Which is not a bad thing, it is a good thing

Albeit the first game was not perfect it took bioware along time to fix it up and create ME2 which is overall a vastly better game.

But the first game had great writing with an incredible story line, great characters and brilliant plot twists

So all of you people saying the game should have nothing to do with Shepard, need to just get over it

and the reapers are going to be the main focus of the movie, especially the end

[InvaderErl]

Dan the Man with a Plan wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

Make the movie well and it doesn't need to be about the Reapers.

Was Casino Royale about a galaxy ending threat? No and people loved it.

Was The Dark Knight about the end of the world? No.

Make a well told plot and the audience won't give a lick about Reapers or galactic extinctions.

Different generas

Which means NOTHING.

I'll point to District 9 and Avatar (which I didn't like) as two movies that audiences responded to last year and neither one was about the end of the world or galactic extinction.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 27 mai 2010 - 03:03 .

[Eternal Density]

InvaderErl wrote...

Make the movie well and it doesn't need to be about the Reapers.

Was Casino Royale about a galaxy ending threat? No and people loved it.

Was The Dark Knight about the end of the world? No.

Make a well told plot and the audience won't give a lick about Reapers or galactic extinctions.

You're absolutely right.  As much as I'd like a Big Galactic Movie, that may be a safer and more effective choice.  I'm not sure whether the people who make those decisions will see it that way though.

And I will agree that there's a LOT of material to work from: they could go with something known such as the novels (which I haven't got my hands on yet) or a big event in ME history or even Shepard's past (the critical problem is Which?) or come up with something new or only vaguely referred to.

Or they could write a new story based somewhat on plot elements from the Mass Effect chronology, set it a world somewhat based upon the Mass Effect universe, including characters that slightly resemble some Mass Effect characters or the qualities thereof... but that would irk me.

They could even make it about the guy behind Elcor Hamlet, but I doubt that would pay off.
The First Contact War - including the discovery on Mars and then of the Mass Relay in Charon - should make on ok film.  The nifty thing is that we don't invade an alien-populated planet, and they don't invade Earth, instead we happen to do something they don't like elsewhere.  And we end up coming to an understanding rather than one side wiping out or subjugating the other.  But there's plenty of back and forth fighting and capturing and retaliation and occupation and such first.  And of course General Williams...

[edit] But just to be clear I'm fully in favour of a Mass Effect 1 movie which I think is what the movie rights are for (as posted above)

Modifié par Eternal Density, 27 mai 2010 - 03:08 .

[Lord Zathule]

Lord Zathule wrote...

I hope someone has already written this, but I am going to write it just in case some of you haven't realized this:
Bioware didn't sell the film writes for the entire Mass Effect universe. They only sold the film writes for the first game.
That means people this is going to be all about Commander Shepard. This is not going to be some prequel to the Mass Effect series. This is NOT going to be about the first contact, or the Rachni war, or the Krogan rebellion, or ME2
This film is going to follow the main plot line of the first Mass Effect game.
Which is not a bad thing, it is a good thing
Albeit the first game was not perfect it took bioware along time to fix it up and create ME2 which is overall a vastly better game.
But the first game had great writing with an incredible story line, great characters and brilliant plot twists
So all of you people saying the game should have nothing to do with Shepard, need to just get over it
and the reapers are going to be the main focus of the movie, especially the end

People please read this, you are still going on as if you haven't realized this movie can only revolve around the first game, because that is the only thing they have sold the rights of.
Except it or face the ninja

[Eternal Density]

Lord Zathule wrote...

Lord Zathule wrote...

I hope someone has already written this, but I am going to write it just in case some of you haven't realized this:
Bioware didn't sell the film writes for the entire Mass Effect universe. They only sold the film writes for the first game.
...

People please read this, you are still going on as if you haven't realized this movie can only revolve around the first game, because that is the only thing they have sold the rights of.
Except it or face the ninja

Agreed... which means it's pointless to start talking about Admiral* Tadius Ahern as the main hero...

[edit]*not that he was an Admiral back then [/edit]

So, should the movie start out with a similar opening sequence to the game or should it do it differently?

Modifié par Eternal Density, 27 mai 2010 - 03:24 .

[Unit-Alpha]

InvaderErl wrote...

Make the movie well and it doesn't need to be about the Reapers.

Was Casino Royale about a galaxy ending threat? No and people loved it.

Was The Dark Knight about the end of the world? No.

Make a well told plot and the audience won't give a lick about Reapers or galactic extinctions.

Hollywood has to have explosions. As long as there are enough explosions and sex scenes to fill a 1 minute trailer, it doesn't matter what the plot is. Sad truth of Hollywood's action movies for the most part.

[Eternal Density]

Unit-Alpha wrote...

Hollywood has to have explosions. As long as there are enough explosions and sex scenes to fill a 1 minute trailer, it doesn't matter what the plot is. Sad truth of Hollywood's action movies for the most part.

And they don't even have to appear in the actual movie!

[denghar]

I got my shepard to look just like Nathan Fillion. So yeah, he shhould definitely be in the movie, as Shepard.

[StinkyNelkin]

First Contact, Revelation, or Ascension.



Otherwise I will cry.



I mean it.



Tears.



Manly tears.

[massranger]

Eternal Density wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

Eternal Density wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

They should just create an original story set in the universe. There's enough room for a different galaxy saving hero to do their thing.

No there isn't.

"Ah yes, 'Reapers'.  The immortal race of sentient starships allegedly waiting in dark space until such a time as they are unleashed on the galaxy to plunder all sentient life, prompting a band of heroes to come together and fight to find a slim chance of stopping them and saving the entire galaxy.  We have ignored this claim and made a movie about something else."
[edit]Again, it's way too early to think about casting of the ME2 characters.  Not that it isn't fun to speculate, of course.

I honestly don't see how you can believe that. I sure hope the ME series can stand without the reapers as the centerpiece or this sucker won't have any longevity at all.

The games can be about the Reapers as they always have been and the movies can be some other threat.

The movie going audience (the general audience - the one that makes studios $$$) won't have expectations dictated to them by the game series.

What I really meant was that no other threat would be as big.  Can they really come up with another pangalactic threat?  Before the Reapers there was the Krogan Rebellions (which was stopped by the Salarians) and before that was the Racni Wars (stopped by the Krogan) (and likely started by the Reapers).  Given the status of humans at the beginning of ME1 I don't think they have saved the whole galaxy from a threat before now (or if they did, it must have been small in scale because no one seems to know about it, which doesn't make any sense at all).  So that leaves us with smaller threats (such as a threat to just humanity like the First Contact Wars) or something post ME3, which doesn't makes sense either.

She speaks the truth, lol, in the ME universe humanity has not been conducting space travel that long.  So if they want to make a movie that does not begin well after the events of ME1, ME2, or even ME3, then they have to make a movie that sets in a relatively small window of time.  That means that about revelation or it's time period, or about something that mentioned in ME1, ie: Rachni wars, Krogan Rebellion, etc.  Even if the movie was about the Geth revolt against the quarians it would be roughly three hundred years before humanity made contact with the Turians.

And nothing so far in the ME universe has been close to the threat that the Reapers are.  Even if they make it about the first contact war, then all it would be doing is setting it up for Shepards eventual debut... unless you wanted them just to stop one movie, which if it was successfull it would not. 

[massranger]

InvaderErl wrote...

Dan the Man with a Plan wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

Make the movie well and it doesn't need to be about the Reapers.

Was Casino Royale about a galaxy ending threat? No and people loved it.

Was The Dark Knight about the end of the world? No.

Make a well told plot and the audience won't give a lick about Reapers or galactic extinctions.

Different generas

Which means NOTHING.

I'll point to District 9 and Avatar (which I didn't like) as two movies that audiences responded to last year and neither one was about the end of the world or galactic extinction.

Both were political, District 9 was still good, didn't care for Avatar, but when a movie is political like they were, they get better reviews, which typically, not all the time, but typically draw more people in. 

Both had nice looking special effects, so all you had to do was get most people in the theater and they were happy to just see the effects, and walked away saying it was good.

[Eternal Density]

massranger wrote...

Both were political, District 9 was still good, didn't care for Avatar, but when a movie is political like they were, they get better reviews, which typically, not all the time, but typically draw more people in. 

Both had nice looking special effects, so all you had to do was get most people in the theater and they were happy to just see the effects, and walked away saying it was good.

They should be able to draw people in with the 'diverse cultures working together to save the galaxy' angle, so long as they don't milk it too hard in the actual movie.  Combine that with good acting, sweet effects, and the rich Mass Effect universe and you could have a winner.