1154 réponses à ce sujet

[gamer_girl]

I think there are way more pro's than that. And con's 2-4 can be part of con 1.

[Massadonious1]

BioWare "sold out" (as much as I loathe the term) the second they partnered with a MAJOR MOVIE STUDIO. And I'm pretty sure that the same studio that co-produced both Nolan's Batman films, Inception, The Hangover and 300, just to name a few, as well as the producer that has literally produced every Marvel movie adaptation under the sun isin't going to settle for a Serenity-esque cult following. They're going to make whatever they feel can make them the most money, whether it's Shepard's story or something else.

That's the cold, hard reality. All this bickering about what they should or shouldn't do is pointless.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 12 juillet 2011 - 09:54 .

[littlezack]

Minor movie studios are just as interested in making money as major ones. They're just not as good at it.

[CaptainZaysh]

Tessarae wrote...

The thing I don't quite understand, is why you think that a movie based on the events of the game will appeal to more people than any other great story within the universe? The vast majority of people paying to see it, would have no idea that there was a game anyway.

Terror_K wrote...

...why is the main trilogy necessary as the adaptation? I've posed this several times but nobody has given a decent answer...

I wanted to address these points, but then Terror_K said it better than I would have.

Terror_K wrote...

Sure, admittedly, it'll never be as epic and grand as the main trilogy's storyline and premise, but almost nothing you could do could be. Mass Effect as it is already has already gone to the upper extreme.

This is the reason the movie has to be about Shepard.  It's the biggest story in the setting.  Any lesser story just wouldn't do the setting justice.

[Tessarae]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Tessarae wrote...

The thing I don't quite understand, is why you think that a movie based on the events of the game will appeal to more people than any other great story within the universe? The vast majority of people paying to see it, would have no idea that there was a game anyway.

Terror_K wrote...

...why is the main trilogy necessary as the adaptation? I've posed this several times but nobody has given a decent answer...

I wanted to address these points, but then Terror_K said it better than I would have.

Terror_K wrote...

Sure, admittedly, it'll never be as epic and grand as the main trilogy's storyline and premise, but almost nothing you could do could be. Mass Effect as it is already has already gone to the upper extreme.

This is the reason the movie has to be about Shepard.  It's the biggest story in the setting.  Any lesser story just wouldn't do the setting justice.

I agree, it's very hard to top Shepard's story, if you've played the games, which the majority of the audience won't have. They will have no comparison.
I believe that a movie can't do the story justice, simply because of the time limit. By trying to squeeze it all into a movie, you'll have to give up a lot of the things that make the story great in the first place.

[Getorex]

IsaacShep wrote...

1upD wrote...
That was never officially announced. Am I the only one who really thinks the First Contact War was too short and involved too little of the Mass Effect universe to become an entire movie?

Of course it was never announced officially, but it appeared at IMDB Pro so it's very reliable information.

As for the First Contact War, you have to remember the movie is only about 2 hours long. First Contact War is more than enough to fill it.

And what?  That's it?  Here ya go, a minor (EXTREMELY short war that wasn't really a war, more of a few skirmishes, and then the REAL stuff happens) incident becomes the mass effect movie?  That would HAVE to be the starting point for more (that would/should be Shepard Centric as the Reapers are the core of the entire game story and Shepard is THE core of the fight against them).

No matter how you slice it, ya gotta have a Shepard-centric movie series to make the ME universe make any sense (unless you are merely going for disjointed, unrelated, small-time side plots).

[Getorex]

Tessarae wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Tessarae wrote...

The thing I don't quite understand, is why you think that a movie based on the events of the game will appeal to more people than any other great story within the universe? The vast majority of people paying to see it, would have no idea that there was a game anyway.

Terror_K wrote...

...why is the main trilogy necessary as the adaptation? I've posed this several times but nobody has given a decent answer...

I wanted to address these points, but then Terror_K said it better than I would have.

Terror_K wrote...

Sure, admittedly, it'll never be as epic and grand as the main trilogy's storyline and premise, but almost nothing you could do could be. Mass Effect as it is already has already gone to the upper extreme.

This is the reason the movie has to be about Shepard.  It's the biggest story in the setting.  Any lesser story just wouldn't do the setting justice.

I agree, it's very hard to top Shepard's story, if you've played the games, which the majority of the audience won't have. They will have no comparison.
I believe that a movie can't do the story justice, simply because of the time limit. By trying to squeeze it all into a movie, you'll have to give up a lot of the things that make the story great in the first place.

SImple really.  The CORE of the entire game and the stories are...the existential threat known as The Reapers.  No way to escape that.  ALL the tech used and depended upon by all the alien races in the story, no matter how you tell it, is based on Reaper tech.  There is only 1 prime character who is at the very heart of discovering this fact (Shepard) AND in fighting them (Shepard).  The movies have to head in Shepard's direction because the Reapers and Shepard are inexorably intertwined with the entire story mythos and universe.

Leave out the Reapers and you've re-written the entire story into something unrecognizable.  If you get to Reapers and don't get to Shepard, you insult the game and the players because if Shepard isn't core to the discovery and fighting of the Reapers, then what the hell have we been doing wasting time playing a game with a minor nothing character?!  He's just some duffus doing his own LITTLE thing?  Really?

Logic problem there.

And yes, I agree that it would be difficult to do the games justice in movies (that is the way it is with ALL movies based on games OR books - except for Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter movies - the ONLY exceptions in world history thus far).  In fact, in thinking about this I have concluded that to actually do the game justice, as well as all the books, one would have to do an HBO or Showtime miniseries of no less than 9 2-hour episodes, but better with 12 2-hour episodes.  You would be able to introduce the universe, get to the core of the games AND still go off and get to some stories based on DLC or the books.  Going for theatrical release automatically limits the scale, scope, and depth of the story.  Going with a miniseries (ala "Generation Kill" and the like) gets past the weaknesses of theatrical releases - and allows for the same actors to stick it out throughout because it wouldn't be over a decade that a set of movies is made. 

The best/only theatrical movie model I can see that would work otherwise is the entire Harry Potter series.  A bunch of movies that spans years (and this is part of the problem) and covers a core threat and a prime character (Voldemort and Potter) quite well, with nice buildup.  But the problem is the years it has taken.  The actors were young so they were more easily available year after year after year.  Not so with established actors in the 30s and 40s.  Years is too long (and difficult to pull off contractually).  Thus, the theatrical model, if theatrical movies MUST be the way to go, is the Harry Potter model.  You can introduce the whole thing with the discovery of the "Prothean" (cough-REAPER!-cough) tech on Mars and the jump gate and the accidental LITTLE TINY fight that came from that...but after that you have to get around to the Protheans, the mysterious disappearance of the Protheans, the fact that "Prothean" technology was actually Reaper tech, etc.  That all requires Shepard.  Anything else is retroactive story editing.

In any case, get over the fact that YOUR game SHepard wont be the movie Shepard.  Boo hoo.  The fact of the matter is that by the time the movie comes out, you and everyone else here will no longer be playing those games.  You will be focused on DA V or Dark Space 4 or some other thing.  If they introduce a set of ME movies with something piddly and minor like the FIrst Contact War, that gives you more breathing space.  By the time the meat of the story gets made (with Shepard in it) you will be long past playing the games (and your latest version of WIndows will likely make it "too old" and unplayable anyway.

Modifié par Getorex, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:23 .

[Getorex]

Terror_K wrote...

stewie1974 wrote...



But...but, but, but Lord Of The Rings just showed you the story you'd read before!, there is the whole of middle earth to set the story in , and they just had to make a movie based off the books!

Books are static and linear, not interactive and dynamic, like a game. Mass Effect is already an interactive movie that lets you experience it first hand in different ways. LotR also never laid down the concept that "there is no set canon for X Character, it's whatever you make it," didn't entirely reboot everything (despite some changes here and there) and was very much catered towards fans of the books above all else.

Well, you are EXTREMELY limited in how "differently" you can experience the game.  No matter who you kill off, no matter whether you play as a sociopath or reasonable human or prissy sissy goodytwoshoes, the outcome of every the story, the arc, the overarching experience is the same.  The difference between one playthrough and the next, if you change your style, is mainly dialog.  You end up in precisely the same place with the same people no matter what.  The outcome of the game is the same no matter what (and if you diverge to loony land and get Shepard killed in ME2, you get Shepard back in ME3 - you have to recreate him).  

It's the limits of tech, the limits of financing, the limits of imagination.  The game is just a much more interactive media than a movie but it isn't by any means open to any real degree.  Maybe in 15 years when our computers contain some form of AI ability...

The movie will be made to appeal to a mass audience.  ANything else is financial suicide.  The movie logically must include Shepard in it (I get into that in another post but in short: the core of the story is Prothean tech...oops, but it isn't Prothean, it is REAPER tech.  This fact is discovered by Shepard, no one else.  The Citadel itself is a mass relay built by the Reapers and it is built with a Reaper invasion in its core.  Shepard alone is key in discovering THAT and preventing it.  Reapers Reapers Reapers = Shepard.  He is the heart and soul of finding and fighting them.  No one else.  The entire ME universe is based on the Reaper tech and revolves around extinction cycles driven by the Reapers.  You can't get anywhere in the universe as depicted without getting to Shepard at THE key points.

Any movies have to have Shepard at their heart (after maybe a soft intro to the entire ME universe in the first movie).  No other character has any BIG role and any stories based on them will be sideliners, footnotes, and minor.  Not the thing that good movies are made from.

[Getorex]

Tech_Chick wrote...

1upD wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

kill_switch_423 wrote...

Some news, finally? Maybe we'll finally find out if it's going to be Shepard-centric or not. Maybe.

It's basically granted it's gonna depict First Contact War.

That was never officially announced. Am I the only one who really thinks the First Contact War was too short and involved too little of the Mass Effect universe to become an entire movie?

Nope. I'd like to see something more the LOTR.

WHat, right out of the blue without any explanation or backstory? Just do LOTR? 

Actually, the first movie has to setup the entire universe and, broadly, the aliens/characters in it.  If you just start with ME1 then you are sticking the audience, most of whom don't know jack about the game, in the middle of a universe that makes no sense.  The first movie sets it up, introduces mass relays, the galactic civilization beyond earth's little system, the alien races, the entire idea of "mass effect" in the first place. 

The only other alternative is tired and worn: a bunch of scrolling text at the beginning ala "Star Wars" where paragraph after paragraph scrolls by giving you an uber short synopsis of the universe you find yourself in.  Not the way to go.  Better to introduce it via a story rather than text, thus a movie that gets to the discovery of Prothean tech on Mars and a Mass Relay in the outer solar system (I wouldn't make it Charon, the co-minor planet of Pluto because, well, we already know it is a cold, small ROCK with maybe some ice on it - just put it out there beyond pluto or in orbit around Pluto-Charon).

After the intro you get into the core story with Shepard, etc.

Of course, with an HBO or Showtime miniseries you would be able to do an intro movie as described, move on the basically making Mass Effect: Revelations with Anderson as the lead to introduce us to the Citadel, SPECTERs, etc, so the entire core backstory is set for introducing us to Shepard.  

[CaptainZaysh]

@Get: I think the best way to introduce the audience to the mass relays is to watch the Normandy fly through one. Just like in the game. We didn't know anything about the universe before we started Mass 1 and we picked it up as we went along just fine - no reason the movie audience can't do the same.

[Tessarae]

Getorex wrote...

SImple really.  The CORE of the entire game and the stories are...the existential threat known as The Reapers.  No way to escape that.  ALL the tech used and depended upon by all the alien races in the story, no matter how you tell it, is based on Reaper tech.  There is only 1 prime character who is at the very heart of discovering this fact (Shepard) AND in fighting them (Shepard).  The movies have to head in Shepard's direction because the Reapers and Shepard are inexorably intertwined with the entire story mythos and universe.

Leave out the Reapers and you've re-written the entire story into something unrecognizable.  If you get to Reapers and don't get to Shepard, you insult the game and the players because if Shepard isn't core to the discovery and fighting of the Reapers, then what the hell have we been doing wasting time playing a game with a minor nothing character?!  He's just some duffus doing his own LITTLE thing?  Really?

Logic problem there.

And yes, I agree that it would be difficult to do the games justice in movies (that is the way it is with ALL movies based on games OR books - except for Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter movies - the ONLY exceptions in world history thus far).  In fact, in thinking about this I have concluded that to actually do the game justice, as well as all the books, one would have to do an HBO or Showtime miniseries of no less than 9 2-hour episodes, but better with 12 2-hour episodes.  You would be able to introduce the universe, get to the core of the games AND still go off and get to some stories based on DLC or the books.  Going for theatrical release automatically limits the scale, scope, and depth of the story.  Going with a miniseries (ala "Generation Kill" and the like) gets past the weaknesses of theatrical releases - and allows for the same actors to stick it out throughout because it wouldn't be over a decade that a set of movies is made. 

The best/only theatrical movie model I can see that would work otherwise is the entire Harry Potter series.  A bunch of movies that spans years (and this is part of the problem) and covers a core threat and a prime character (Voldemort and Potter) quite well, with nice buildup.  But the problem is the years it has taken.  The actors were young so they were more easily available year after year after year.  Not so with established actors in the 30s and 40s.  Years is too long (and difficult to pull off contractually).  Thus, the theatrical model, if theatrical movies MUST be the way to go, is the Harry Potter model.  You can introduce the whole thing with the discovery of the "Prothean" (cough-REAPER!-cough) tech on Mars and the jump gate and the accidental LITTLE TINY fight that came from that...but after that you have to get around to the Protheans, the mysterious disappearance of the Protheans, the fact that "Prothean" technology was actually Reaper tech, etc.  That all requires Shepard.  Anything else is retroactive story editing.

In any case, get over the fact that YOUR game SHepard wont be the movie Shepard.  Boo hoo.  The fact of the matter is that by the time the movie comes out, you and everyone else here will no longer be playing those games.  You will be focused on DA V or Dark Space 4 or some other thing.  If they introduce a set of ME movies with something piddly and minor like the FIrst Contact War, that gives you more breathing space.  By the time the meat of the story gets made (with Shepard in it) you will be long past playing the games (and your latest version of WIndows will likely make it "too old" and unplayable anyway.

We agree that Shepard's story is a huge part of the ME universe. It connects it all. I disagree though, that it is the only story worth telling. The general audience will simply be expecting a sci-fi movie and a story like FCW fits the movie medium better. Compared to the story in the games (which only the people who played the games will know, and again, we are not the main audience), yeah, it seems quite minor. 
If you don't compare though, and simply imagine it as a movie, I can easily see it as being interesting. Humanity going beyond our own solar system and the first alien contact has potential if you ask me. 

I am in no way opposed to telling Shepard's story in another medium than the games. I simply think that a movie is too limited, time-wise, to tell it properly. It has nothing to do with the fact that it won't be my Shepard. I'd love to see it as a TV series. Male, renegade, Ashley-romancing Shepard or not.

The fact of the matter is, that it will be a movie. If we were discussing whether it should be a 12x2 hour TV series or a 2 hour theatrical release, I don't think there'd be much discussion at all

As for not being able to play the games in the future, I did manage to make the old Red Alert work on my Windows 7 machine and I'm sure I can do the same with Mass Effect. I fully intend to replay the series when I'm 40 and then force my kids to play it too

Modifié par Tessarae, 12 juillet 2011 - 08:07 .

[HTTP 404]

They should just make an HBO series on Mass Effect....

[Extremedemon09]

A Mass Effect movie would be great I'd love to see it talk about Thane and his assassin work and have the last scene him meeting Shepard in Dantius Towers without them actually showing Shepard
OR 
Maybe how the Geth took over the Quarian homeworld
Anyone have Ideas on my thoughts? 

[gamer_girl]

Phew, I'm glad people finally understand that a Shepard movie isn't a be all end all. That was getting irritating. I still think it's the best idea yet, frankly.

[Ylhaym]

gamer_girl wrote...

Phew, I'm glad people finally understand that a Shepard movie isn't a be all end all. That was getting irritating. I still think it's the best idea yet, frankly.

[Ninjapino]

gamer_girl wrote...

Phew, I'm glad people finally understand that a Shepard movie isn't a be all end all. That was getting irritating. I still think it's the best idea yet, frankly.

As I stated before, as long as it's good, I'll be happy.  But still think it would be best to expand the universe, in my opinion.  Mostly, I just got tired of hearing the same arguments and going in circles on here, so I stopped trying to state my case.

[Getorex]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

@Get: I think the best way to introduce the audience to the mass relays is to watch the Normandy fly through one. Just like in the game. We didn't know anything about the universe before we started Mass 1 and we picked it up as we went along just fine - no reason the movie audience can't do the same.

One way or another everything (the back story, the races, the tech, etc) has to be explained.  You either do it in a fairly crude or clumsy way (Star Wars text scroll) or you throw away movie time here and there explaining it.  Why not just do it in one introductory movie and get it out of the way?  After that you can refer to Protheans, the Citadel, etc, without having to have some form of expository explanation.  Remember, we only have 2 (3 if the director gets a little crazy) hours to do the story.  

This is actually why I really would prefer an HBO series (I'd buy the DVD set because I don't get HBO, thus I bought Generation Kill). You can be more sedate and thoughtful in how you get from point a to point b.  You can dedicate 2 hours to a backstory or even a useful side story that helps flesh out the main story.  You get more depth potential from all the characters.  You aren't expected to "love" the characters right off and accept a wham-bam fast love story between a Shep and an Ash or Liara.  You help bring in those who don't play games or haven't played this one, etc.  You get a bigger story with meat on it that can stand on its own without anyone ever having played.

At least with an HBO/Showtime movie you can get production values on par with a theatrical movie.  You want good FX, good actors, good environments, etc, without going lowbrow, cheap-assed SyFy channel movie.   

If you go all OTHER story with the ME movies then you are just tossing out random noise that only the actual game players would understand and appreciate.  To the gamer certain side movies might make all kinds of sense because you can refer back to the books and the game.  99% of the viewing public cannot.  The local audience is NOT a good referent on this.  To people here almost ANY story in the ME universe makes sense and is understandable but to 99% of the public it would be nothing but "WTF?"  No idea about what's going on.  That can work if you go crappy action-focused only (no brains or thought necessary) but a GOOD ME movie would be more than a mere action vehicle.

[Kathleen321]

Man I need to get to comic con. It would cost so much for a plane ticket though

[CaptainZaysh]

@Get: ME1 introduces you to the setting just fine. We learn about the Protheans through the beacon and Liara. We learn about galactic politics through the Citadel Council and Udina. We learn about the genophage through Wrex and about the races through having them in the crew. We learn about the relays by flying through them.

That's the best way to introduce setting elements - show them in action. I think the idea of an introductory movie is a bad one, because without the biggest and most epic story the universe has to offer I think it'll be a flop.

Modifié par CaptainZaysh, 13 juillet 2011 - 09:56 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Tessarae wrote...

We agree that Shepard's story is a huge part of the ME universe. It connects it all. I disagree though, that it is the only story worth telling. The general audience will simply be expecting a sci-fi movie and a story like FCW fits the movie medium better. Compared to the story in the games (which only the people who played the games will know, and again, we are not the main audience), yeah, it seems quite minor. 
If you don't compare though, and simply imagine it as a movie, I can easily see it as being interesting. Humanity going beyond our own solar system and the first alien contact has potential if you ask me. 

What the general audience (and, crucially, the reviewers) will compare it with is other movies they've seen.  If the story feels less grand and epic than other sci-fi blockbusters, that's what they'll say.  "An interesting setting is let down by a strangely lacklustre plot.  2 stars."

And I don't want to labour the point but, really, FCW would be the most retarded movie ever.  A few skirmishes with some unterrifying aliens, ended when a previously unknown space UN intervenes and imposes a diplomatic settlement.  There's a reason BioWare relegated it to a codex entry.

[naledgeborn]

No Shepard in Mass Effect movie. Why? Because I've played once or twice just the critical path. That's Eden Prime, Citadel, Feros, Therum, Noveria, Virmire, Illos, Citadel 2 and it can't be done in less than 10 hours unless you're skipping dialogue. That's 10 hours condensed into 2 hours. It would not do the game justice at all.

[Dazaster Dellus]

naledgeborn wrote...

No Shepard in Mass Effect movie. Why? Because I've played once or twice just the critical path. That's Eden Prime, Citadel, Feros, Therum, Noveria, Virmire, Illos, Citadel 2 and it can't be done in less than 10 hours unless you're skipping dialogue. That's 10 hours condensed into 2 hours. It would not do the game justice at all.

Yes they could if the screen writer is actually talented. Most of that stuff is during the main campaign and is not  a necessity anyways. If they were to do Shep, they would not have him fighting endless waves of enemies so the combat would be taken down quite a bit. Also I am more than sure they wouldn't have him looking for garage passes to get to Peak 13(which makes no sense anyways) when they could just as easily have Tali hack the door and he as a Spectre could have just forced his way through.  There are a ton of things that happened in the main game that wouldn't be needed for the movie.

[Tessarae]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

What the general audience (and, crucially, the reviewers) will compare it with is other movies they've seen.  If the story feels less grand and epic than other sci-fi blockbusters, that's what they'll say.  "An interesting setting is let down by a strangely lacklustre plot.  2 stars."

And I don't want to labour the point but, really, FCW would be the most retarded movie ever.  A few skirmishes with some unterrifying aliens, ended when a previously unknown space UN intervenes and imposes a diplomatic settlement.  There's a reason BioWare relegated it to a codex entry.

When you say it like that, of course it'll sound boring. You're looking at it as a codex entry. When you add a protagonist and tell the story from an up close and personal point of view, it gets interesting because you identify with someone in the middle of it.
While the ending may seem a bit anti-climatic when reduced to a single sentence, if you play it out like a last-minute rescue when it seems to our hero that all hope is lost, it's a whole other experience. Instead of having to put Shepard's story on a diet to make it fit, with FCW you have the freedom to add to the story and make it better.

[gamer_girl]

Tessarae wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

What the general audience (and, crucially, the reviewers) will compare it with is other movies they've seen.  If the story feels less grand and epic than other sci-fi blockbusters, that's what they'll say.  "An interesting setting is let down by a strangely lacklustre plot.  2 stars."

And I don't want to labour the point but, really, FCW would be the most retarded movie ever.  A few skirmishes with some unterrifying aliens, ended when a previously unknown space UN intervenes and imposes a diplomatic settlement.  There's a reason BioWare relegated it to a codex entry.

When you say it like that, of course it'll sound boring. You're looking at it as a codex entry. When you add a protagonist and tell the story from an up close and personal point of view, it gets interesting because you identify with someone in the middle of it.
While the ending may seem a bit anti-climatic when reduced to a single sentence, if you play it out like a last-minute rescue when it seems to our hero that all hope is lost, it's a whole other experience. Instead of having to put Shepard's story on a diet to make it fit, with FCW you have the freedom to add to the story and make it better.

I'll lay it out a bit better for you:

Shepard
-More aliens
-Plot that we KNOW works well
-Less cost because the story is already made aside from screenplay
-How interesting is a plot about a Hero/Heroine in a time of crisis? Many successful films about this.
-Fans will get to experience the story in a different way, and new people will get to see this and then play as the hero and make their own decisions in an interactive gameplay experience. (full experience with films and games) And it's easy to understand for new people as it explains itself.
-Although it may not be as good as the games the plot is still interesting even in a limited time frame (see Harry Potter and LotR, great adaptations that are still enjoyable even for big fans of the series)

FCW
-less aliens
-We know the plot of the event but not the plot of possible characters. AKA could very well be a flop.
-More cost because you have to pay for both ideas and a screenplay
-How interesting is a film about war? See the many war epics that failed.
-Likely only huge fans of the series would enjoy this (even then hard to say because tons of fans are overcritical), and new people probably wouldn't follow it without extensive lore.
-Not compelling enough to do the series justice

Modifié par gamer_girl, 13 juillet 2011 - 05:16 .

[littlezack]

The problem with the FCW is that it barely qualifies as a war - it was more a misunderstanding that resulted in a few minor battles and few deaths, all things considered. It's not a terribly epic event, and it doesn't give much room for a war epic. It wasn't an epic war.