262 réponses à ce sujet

[SupR G]

moneycashgeorge wrote...


 Another ignorant about screenwriting. Congrats!

The way I have summarized Mass Effect in 8 parts would lead to an average of ~20 minutes (that means more or less on some parts) for each of them for a total length of ~150 minutes, which is the duration of most epic movies lately. Even 20 minutes is quite a lot.

These 8 parts would fit with no sweat in 2 1/2 hrs.

Damn you've got some nerve calling me ignorant if you think each of those segments could be well paced at 20 minutes each. Noveria in 20 minutes? What is it going to be a slideshow? A well done Noveria segment would have to be  45-60 minutes. And it would serve no purpose in a film.

You're both wrong. To actually imitate what happened on Noveria, it would in fact take too long, but to assume that every event that occured in the game is actually relevant to the story is ridiculous. Noveria was fun to play through, and had an interesting sub-plot, but most of it was for gameplay value. Determining what was better for the game, and what was necessary and better for the story is the tricky dance of  video game adaptation. Also moneycashgeorge, I'd like you to watch a film and time what happens in 20 minutes, a lot can happen believe me.

[moneycashgeorge]

Any way the point is that adapting Mass Effect 1 into an acceptable 2.5 hour movie would be absolutely impossible. It would be a financial blunder for any studio, it would kill the fabulous reputation that Bioware and EA have garnered for the franchise, and audiences, fan and lay alike would be unsatisfied.

I said this over 10 months ago. Thankfully the people making this movie aren't as blind as Supr G and Mauxulic.

Conversely, a film adaption of the Mass Effect backstory is an elegant solution that I myself stated would be the best choice before the movie was even announced.

The backstory is rich with material that could be turned into an excellent film, that could exist independently of the game franchise, compensate for the vagueness of the backstory as it currently stands, introduce new audiences to the series, and serve as an "origin story" for future films that could then adapt the plot of the games without having to acclimate the audience to the Mass Effect universe.

The film could cover the wide reaching implications of the discovery of alien ruins and mass effect technology. It could explore life on a future earth and the genesis of widespread space exploration. First Contact with the turians would be the main focus and the source of action, and if done right could be a fascinating study of what contact with an alien race could actually be like.

When a film is well paced, takes its time to explore the characters and themes, and has a well thought out plot and action, the above summary could EASILY take up three hours, and be cut down to two for cinemas.

Your idea of racing around the galaxy, cramming in as many ME1 set pieces as possible would be complete trash and not worthy of the Mass Effect title.

Pre-ME1 is the only sensible option for a Mass Effect film. When I think of what a Mass Effect movie should be, I think of movies like Moon, Solaris (Tarkovsky), 2001: A Space Odyssey, Gattaca, with action scenes similar to Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, and space battles similar to the TV series Battlestar Galactica.

These are good,thoughtful, and meaningful works of art. And guess what, they are all slow.

Mauxulic here apparantly wants a Mass Effect film that has more in common with generic action movies, which are the antithesis of Mass Effect. Yea, maybe all of Mass Effect 1 could be crammed into 2.5 hours if George Lucas made it on a green screen, but then I would have to kill myself.

[SupR G]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Any way the point is that adapting Mass Effect 1 into an acceptable 2.5 hour movie would be absolutely impossible. It would be a financial blunder for any studio, it would kill the fabulous reputation that Bioware and EA have garnered for the franchise, and audiences, fan and lay alike would be unsatisfied.

I said this over 10 months ago. Thankfully the people making this movie aren't as blind as Supr G and Mauxulic.

Conversely, a film adaption of the Mass Effect backstory is an elegant solution that I myself stated would be the best choice before the movie was even announced.

The backstory is rich with material that could be turned into an excellent film, that could exist independently of the game franchise, compensate for the vagueness of the backstory as it currently stands, introduce new audiences to the series, and serve as an "origin story" for future films that could then adapt the plot of the games without having to acclimate the audience to the Mass Effect universe.

The film could cover the wide reaching implications of the discovery of alien ruins and mass effect technology. It could explore life on a future earth and the genesis of widespread space exploration. First Contact with the turians would be the main focus and the source of action, and if done right could be a fascinating study of what contact with an alien race could actually be like.

When a film is well paced, takes its time to explore the characters and themes, and has a well thought out plot and action, the above summary could EASILY take up three hours, and be cut down to two for cinemas.

Your idea of racing around the galaxy, cramming in as many ME1 set pieces as possible would be complete trash and not worthy of the Mass Effect title.

Pre-ME1 is the only sensible option for a Mass Effect film. When I think of what a Mass Effect movie should be, I think of movies like Moon, Solaris (Tarkovsky), 2001: A Space Odyssey, Gattaca, with action scenes similar to Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, and space battles similar to the TV series Battlestar Galactica.

These are good,thoughtful, and meaningful works of art. And guess what, they are all slow.

Mauxulic here apparantly wants a Mass Effect film that has more in common with generic action movies, which are the antithesis of Mass Effect. Yea, maybe all of Mass Effect 1 could be crammed into 2.5 hours if George Lucas made it on a green screen, but then I would have to kill myself.

Good job. Ignoring people who contradict you with reason by calling them "blind" and saying adaptation is "impossible" without formulating a single substantiated argument is pretty smart. So what happens when they want to make a 'Mass Effect 2' which follows the game, which according to you will be impossible. I guess this will be the only Mass Effect movie and the epic trilogy will remain in obscurity.

[Ghost Warrior]

How is this confirmed?
Link?

[TAK The Voyager]

SupR G wrote...
Mark Protosevich is writing the screenplay. He wrote I Am Legend, and worked on Thor, among other films. I am not certain he is the best choice.

Me niether. I'm not seeing this film a future success. =\\

[moneycashgeorge]

Maybe you really are blind supr g because I said in my post that a prequel film could set up future films in such a way that a sequel following the games would be more manageable.

[SupR G]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Maybe you really are blind supr g because I said in my post that a prequel film could set up future films in such a way that a sequel following the games would be more manageable.

I wonder why I bother to respond to you since you just ignore what I say anyway. First, having a prequel movie doesn't make future films more "manageable", which I guess is your way of saying "possible". As I stated numerous times, complex and rich settings filled with backstory don't need to be explained in prequel movies for stories to make sense. EXAMPLES: Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Blade Runner, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, etc and so forth. Stop ignoring common sense just to appear correct. Anyway, I'm done responding to your nonsensical BS.

Modifié par SupR G, 04 avril 2011 - 11:48 .

[Paul Sedgmore]

The decision to set it during the First Contact War is partly to do with budget, to do ME1 justice you would need to design and make around 7 unique locations of varying sizes without changing the story too much, whereas the FCW would have a lot less to create. That coupled with the fact that it is a lot easier to write a story that hasn't already been told and they would have much more freedom to create the story how they want to tell it without stepping on the toes of the people who have played the game.

[Foryou]

Okay I liked spiderman 2 and iron man was good (from what i hear) and it's the first contact war so hopefully it won't get killed.

[lolfanboi]

If this is a success, then maybe there will be more Mass Effect movies.

[Snake_DoctorM4]

and that is why i'm glad they are not making a metal gear solid movie hollywood is just ******.

[Mister Mida]

Ghost Warrior wrote...

How is this confirmed?
Link?

As far as I know, it isn't. Someone just put a description on IMDBPro. And since that's the same like changing a page on Wikipedia, the reliability of this description is close to nihil, IMO that is.

[decampo]

If the OP details are true them I'm bitterly disappointed! The Mass Effect story deserves better than that as for me, it's as good as any of the best sci-fi movies that have been released. Pity.

[G00N3R7883]

SupR G wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Maybe you really are blind supr g because I said in my post that a prequel film could set up future films in such a way that a sequel following the games would be more manageable.

I wonder why I bother to respond to you since you just ignore what I say anyway. First, having a prequel movie doesn't make future films more "manageable", which I guess is your way of saying "possible". As I stated numerous times, complex and rich settings filled with backstory don't need to be explained in prequel movies for stories to make sense. EXAMPLES: Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Blade Runner, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, etc and so forth. Stop ignoring common sense just to appear correct. Anyway, I'm done responding to your nonsensical BS.

Star Trek was a TV series long before it became a movie, therefore movie viewers were already familiar with the technology and the species and so on, so there was little to explain there anyway.  Battlestar Galactica, to my knowledge, has never been a movie. But that is a poor example to make your point anyway because that series has exactly ONE alien species to explain, rather than about 16 in Mass Effect. Blade Runner I can't comment, never watched it. Lord of the Rings, lets be honest, you don't need to be familar with LOTR specifically to know what a Dwarf is and what an Elf is. Anything fantasy related would tell you what you need to know.

Star Wars I'll give you to a certain extent, they didn't explain much and it didn't hurt the movie. I think Star Wars intentionally kept most of the aliens in the cantina as mysterious and that worked. The Force was basically explained as "its magic lol just accept it" and again it worked. (In fact it would have been better if they'd left it at that and didn't try to explain it later with midiclorians). BUT how many aliens actually played a key role on the Falcon? One - Chewie. Everyone else was Human or a Droid (and I don't think they need much explaining, robots have been seen countless times).

The equivalent for Mass Effect -- unless they butchered the story and cut things out, which is what alot of us here are fearing for a movie of the games -- would have four aliens, each one a different species, on the Normandy playing a key role. You have to spend some time explaining their cultures etc or else nobody cares about those characters. You have to explain biotics, mass effect technology, protheans, reapers, spectres and on and on.

What moneycashgeorge is saying is that if you do a FCW movie first, you can explain Turians and mass relays and Protheans and maybe touch on the Citadel in that movie. And then in the 2nd movie you can introduce Krogans and Asari and Quarians etc, and its an easier way of spreading the information out and not overwhelming Mass Effect newcomers.

Modifié par G00N3R7883, 05 avril 2011 - 01:25 .

[SupR G]

Mister Mida wrote...

Ghost Warrior wrote...

How is this confirmed?
Link?

As far as I know, it isn't. Someone just put a description on IMDBPro. And since that's the same like changing a page on Wikipedia, the reliability of this description is close to nihil, IMO that is.

Whatever helps you guys sleep at night.

[moneycashgeorge]

G00N3R7883 wrote...

SupR G wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Maybe you really are blind supr g because I said in my post that a prequel film could set up future films in such a way that a sequel following the games would be more manageable.

I wonder why I bother to respond to you since you just ignore what I say anyway. First, having a prequel movie doesn't make future films more "manageable", which I guess is your way of saying "possible". As I stated numerous times, complex and rich settings filled with backstory don't need to be explained in prequel movies for stories to make sense. EXAMPLES: Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Blade Runner, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, etc and so forth. Stop ignoring common sense just to appear correct. Anyway, I'm done responding to your nonsensical BS.

Star Trek was a TV series long before it became a movie, therefore movie viewers were already familiar with the technology and the species and so on, so there was little to explain there anyway.  Battlestar Galactica, to my knowledge, has never been a movie. But that is a poor example to make your point anyway because that series has exactly ONE alien species to explain, rather than about 16 in Mass Effect. Blade Runner I can't comment, never watched it. Lord of the Rings, lets be honest, you don't need to be familar with LOTR specifically to know what a Dwarf is and what an Elf is. Anything fantasy related would tell you what you need to know.

Star Wars I'll give you to a certain extent, they didn't explain much and it didn't hurt the movie. I think Star Wars intentionally kept most of the aliens in the cantina as mysterious and that worked. The Force was basically explained as "its magic lol just accept it" and again it worked. (In fact it would have been better if they'd left it at that and didn't try to explain it later with midiclorians). BUT how many aliens actually played a key role on the Falcon? One - Chewie. Everyone else was Human or a Droid (and I don't think they need much explaining, robots have been seen countless times).

The equivalent for Mass Effect -- unless they butchered the story and cut things out, which is what alot of us here are fearing for a movie of the games -- would have four aliens, each one a different species, on the Normandy playing a key role. You have to spend some time explaining their cultures etc or else nobody cares about those characters. You have to explain biotics, mass effect technology, protheans, reapers, spectres and on and on.

What moneycashgeorge is saying is that if you do a FCW movie first, you can explain Turians and mass relays and Protheans and maybe touch on the Citadel in that movie. And then in the 2nd movie you can introduce Krogans and Asari and Quarians etc, and its an easier way of spreading the information out and not overwhelming Mass Effect newcomers.

This. Finally somebody who thinks

And on the topic of Star Wars, its universe has no versimilitude or depth. The main conflicts are nothing more than an archtypical "Rebels (french resistance) versus Empire (****s)". The only real thing that has any relevant history that needs to be explained are the Jedi.

The aliens and technology exist mainly for aesthetic purposes and are of little consequence, therefore no explanation is needed. There would be no purpose to explaining the cultures and societies of Jawas or tentacle heads or Hutts or all of the endless other peripheral aliens.

These things simply exist in Star Wars and are never questioned. That would never work in a Mass Effect film because the histories of the various races and the mechanics of the technologies are woven into the main story. That is one of the main reasons I love it so much.

For example the Geth would be the main enemy in a Mass Effect movie, and to explain the Geth you would need to delve into the history of the Quarian, and would then have to discuss the controversial status of A.I. in galactic society.

To have Krogan be at all meaningfull you would have to talk about the Genophage, and would then have to talk about the Krogan Rebellion, and would then have to talk about the Rachni War etc. 

To compare Mass Effect to Star Wars or Lord of the Rings is laughable. The backstories do not matter in those movies. (The only real relevant backstory in LotR is the how Bilbo got the ring and the royal line of Gondor)

In Mass Effect there is a massive amount of backstory that is essential to the plot.

Modifié par moneycashgeorge, 05 avril 2011 - 07:11 .

[SupR G]

G00N3R7883 wrote...

Star Trek was a TV series long before it became a movie, therefore movie viewers were already familiar with the technology and the species and so on, so there was little to explain there anyway.  Battlestar Galactica, to my knowledge, has never been a movie. But that is a poor example to make your point anyway because that series has exactly ONE alien species to explain, rather than about 16 in Mass Effect. Blade Runner I can't comment, never watched it. Lord of the Rings, lets be honest, you don't need to be familar with LOTR specifically to know what a Dwarf is and what an Elf is. Anything fantasy related would tell you what you need to know.

Star Wars I'll give you to a certain extent, they didn't explain much and it didn't hurt the movie. I think Star Wars intentionally kept most of the aliens in the cantina as mysterious and that worked. The Force was basically explained as "its magic lol just accept it" and again it worked. (In fact it would have been better if they'd left it at that and didn't try to explain it later with midiclorians). BUT how many aliens actually played a key role on the Falcon? One - Chewie. Everyone else was Human or a Droid (and I don't think they need much explaining, robots have been seen countless times).

The equivalent for Mass Effect -- unless they butchered the story and cut things out, which is what alot of us here are fearing for a movie of the games -- would have four aliens, each one a different species, on the Normandy playing a key role. You have to spend some time explaining their cultures etc or else nobody cares about those characters. You have to explain biotics, mass effect technology, protheans, reapers, spectres and on and on.

What moneycashgeorge is saying is that if you do a FCW movie first, you can explain Turians and mass relays and Protheans and maybe touch on the Citadel in that movie. And then in the 2nd movie you can introduce Krogans and Asari and Quarians etc, and its an easier way of spreading the information out and not overwhelming Mass Effect newcomers.

This phrase "Mass Effect newcomers" is thrown around really too much. Mass Effect fans are not geniuses, and how was the start of the game any different for us then the start of a movie? We didn't play through a Mass Effect prequel to understand what was going on, and what was at stake. Saying that a prequel movie will -help- is one thing, saying that it is absolutely necessary to make a film off the game is something else. That's just BS.

And by the way, don't skip over LOTR and Star Trek so callously. People know what dwarves and elves are so therefore they knew everything about it? Nobody knew who or what Smeagol was until the third film. Nobody knew where Sauron came from. Nobody knew what the Mythrendil were, or where the Elves were going. Nobody knew any of the backstory to Gondor, Rohan, or what happened to the Dwarves. Yet did any of that mystery ruin the films for us? Did it make them less coherent or impossible to make? No, of course not. Even Star Trek the series didn't have "prequels" before the series was made.

Face it, a FCW might be interesting, but is it necessary? No. Will it make a Mass Effect movie more "possible" to make? No!

[SupR G]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

This. Finally somebody who thinks

Can't defend your arguments so you wait for someone else to then say "Finally someone who thinks". Grow a pair, and maybe grow a brain while you're at it.

[Paul Sedgmore]

SupR G wrote...

This phrase "Mass Effect newcomers" is thrown around really too much. Mass Effect fans are not geniuses, and how was the start of the game any different for us then the start of a movie? We didn't play through a Mass Effect prequel to understand what was going on, and what was at stake. Saying that a prequel movie will -help- is one thing, saying that it is absolutely necessary to make a film off the game is something else. That's just BS.

And by the way, don't skip over LOTR and Star Trek so callously. People know what dwarves and elves are so therefore they knew everything about it? Nobody knew who or what Smeagol was until the third film. Nobody knew where Sauron came from. Nobody knew what the Mythrendil were, or where the Elves were going. Nobody knew any of the backstory to Gondor, Rohan, or what happened to the Dwarves. Yet did any of that mystery ruin the films for us? Did it make them less coherent or impossible to make? No, of course not. Even Star Trek the series didn't have "prequels" before the series was made.

Face it, a FCW might be interesting, but is it necessary? No. Will it make a Mass Effect movie more "possible" to make? No!

LotR is one of the bestselling books of all time and shaped how Fantasy stories are told, it uses many of the same theams as most fantasy books or films do now. 

Allthough I agree with you that films do not need to explain everything to the audience using LotR and Star Trek as examples doesn't really hold up as they both use theams that the majority of people are familiar with.

[moneycashgeorge]

SupR G wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...

This. Finally somebody who thinks

Can't defend your arguments so you wait for someone else to then say "Finally someone who thinks". Grow a pair, and maybe grow a brain while you're at it.

Gtfo imbecile. I proved my points ad nausem, despite the fact that they are obvious to anyone without a degenerative brain disorder. Your points are stupid, your ideas are stupid, and by extension its pretty clear that you, in addition to being a whiny priss and an arrogant stubborn douche, are also incredibly stupid. 

[SupR G]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Gtfo imbecile. I proved my points ad nausem, despite the fact that they are obvious to anyone without a degenerative brain disorder. Your points are stupid, your ideas are stupid, and by extension its pretty clear that you, in addition to being a whiny priss and an arrogant stubborn douche, are also incredibly stupid. 

At least I can defend arguments with clear points and examples. You either curl your tail up and hide behind other people or turn to "You're stooopid! Nuhhhh". Maybe when you finish Grade 6 you can come back and debate with the adults.

[NirvanaRain]

Ah the first contact war, interesting!

[moneycashgeorge]

SupR G wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...

Gtfo imbecile. I proved my points ad nausem, despite the fact that they are obvious to anyone without a degenerative brain disorder. Your points are stupid, your ideas are stupid, and by extension its pretty clear that you, in addition to being a whiny priss and an arrogant stubborn douche, are also incredibly stupid. 

At least I can defend arguments with clear points and examples. You either curl your tail up and hide behind other people or turn to "You're stooopid! Nuhhhh". Maybe when you finish Grade 6 you can come back and debate with the adults.

Can someone put this kid back in his cage? I gave tons of examples. I made my points in great detail many times, and clearly demonstrated the unavoidable faults of an adaptation of the first game, as well as the elegant advantages of a prequel-film. 

You are the one who is has not given any logical reasoning
You are the one who resorted to ad hominem attacks
You are the one sounds like a complete child
 
This thread is played out, you have been proved wrong. Make another retarded post if you wish, i will not be returning. 

[Parah_Salin]

Cherico2 wrote...

Lets just hope that they don't use humans as Turians and aliens, better to make them CGI.

Oh....I disagree with this post so much...CGI for enhanced effects, textures, etc... yeah, that will be needed, but there's just a certain quality you get with a human actor, that makes them seam more real, and easier to relate to, since turians are sentient and all.

Oh, one good thing about it being the First Contact War, no blue alien chicks mind-humping. I so don't want ANYTHING Mass Effect compared to Advatar (or Space Dances with Wolves)

[Archereon]

^ Big problem with that is that Turian's don't look human enough for that, even motion capture would be difficult.