1154 réponses à ce sujet

[DylanZeppelin]

I am completely against turning VGs into Movies. VGs are a form of art and entertainment on it's own and should be accepted as such and this is coming from not just a gamer (since V.gaming started), but a student film maker. It's very disrespectful that I as a video game developer have to change and tailor my art into something else that the "general public" (ignorant people) deems acceptable.

Another point is why video games cannot be adapted into movies. I mean there's a reason why most film adaptations of novels are usually not as good as the book(s) and the novels being much better in other cases, except maybe a very few where the book might not have been good but the filmmakers' vision is and with this we go into fidelity. Novels/books are not set, no matter how much the author describes a character and/or a location, it's always up to the reader's imagination and the reason why books are usually better, no matter how great of a vision a Director has or so. Video games are set (not talking about the customization and personal part of video gaming), they are not like novels, you know how places look and feel, how characters look and sound and so on (I could go on about other things such as art direction in the different mediums, but then this will become much longer) and this is why they shouldn't be made into Movies, they fail because of this, not to mention how publishing companies think of and look at video games and how they get the worst people to work on them, which is another issue.

And another point I wanted to touch upon is the interaction part of VGs and the genres, the personal part. There's a reason why all these different mediums are there and that is because each is better at telling a story in a specific way, it's own specific way, that is what storytelling is about in the first place. VGs do it through personal interaction (among other things), whether it's a text-based adventure, a Point-and-Click adventure, a FPS or a RPG etc. The GAME play is the biggest part of it, take that away and you stripped it of it's core.

I might have posted about this here before, am not sure, but aside from all the previous points lets take Uncharted, MGS and SC as an example (excluding ME). Uncharted is an action adventure game that is presented in a Hollywood action blockbuster form. This worked well because of various reasons apart from the game being very good at what it is and NG being great. Some of those reasons are timing and the state of video games now and how a lot of people are coming into vgs now with all the casual stuff, but anyway what I want to say is that once you turn it back into it "original" form what do you get? You get something that has been seen and done many times before in the medium (movies), a story that has been told before in that way and so on, it worked BECAUSE of the way it was presented in a VG.

MGS is just the no no of no nos for me. It's one of my favorite stories ever told not just in vgs but overall and I own a film/book collection that is older than planet Earth and I am glad that HK is not making it and hope that it never gets done. I mean from the voice acting to the music to the direction and cinematography to the gameplay.

SC I added just as a case of multiplayer. When they started talking of a movie I thought wow, just wow, a game that is purely about extreme, competitive gameplay and a they want to turn it into a movie if they had the opportunity, because the story worked out for them, at least with the first one and it's expansion. Doesn't anyone have integrity anymore.

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

[Omega-202]

octoberfire wrote...

In this instance, I would rather they pull a Resident Evil and just make up complete crap about the story that isn't in the games.

Which has made a hell of a lot of fans of RE really angry also. 

I'll repeat what I've said before: They didn't make the Harry Potter movies without Harry.  They didn't make the LotR movies without Frodo.  They didn't make the Batman movies without Batman.  All of those series have enough of a universe to make films without their main storylines, but they didn't.  Each would have been a complete flop.  

You don't make your first foray into adapting a IP for film with a side story.  You go with what made the IP special in the first place.  

[The h0bb1t]

@ChurchOfZod
Yes, it just makes the experience that much nicer for fans of the franchise, and is just pure fan-service. And we all like ourself some little fan-service ;-)

Yes, it is epic.
And it's also personal, but only because you can create your own Shepard, make your own choices and create bonds with characters.
Imagine if they had a blank character like MasterChief from the Halo series, it would make the game just another space-shooter.
That's a level of personality you'll never get from a "Shep" movie, it will only make the game 10 times better, thus the movie is going to fail by not delivering the same amount of personality to the characters.
The characters in the game feel alive, that's one of the aspects that make ME what it is.
And it's only going to be ruined when you see them on big screen with different actors playing them.
And instead of trying to be as good as the game, the movie should just have it's own story and identity.

Oh shi-, wait, did i just state the same thing as Legendary Pictures just said at Comic Con?
The movie isn't about Shepard, so deal with it.

Modifié par The h0bb1t, 23 juillet 2011 - 05:54 .

[Eternal Dust]

Omega-202 wrote...

octoberfire wrote...

In this instance, I would rather they pull a Resident Evil and just make up complete crap about the story that isn't in the games.

Which has made a hell of a lot of fans of RE really angry also. 

I'll repeat what I've said before: They didn't make the Harry Potter movies without Harry.  They didn't make the LotR movies without Frodo.  They didn't make the Batman movies without Batman.  All of those series have enough of a universe to make films without their main storylines, but they didn't.  Each would have been a complete flop.  

You don't make your first foray into adapting a IP for film with a side story.  You go with what made the IP special in the first place. 

Except all of your examples weren't a "Choose your own adventure." RE, Harry Potter, Batman, LotR had characters and stories that were defined. I got to pick my Shepard's gender, class, and psychological profile. I got to choose whether Ash or Kaiden died on Virmire. I got to choose whether to kill the colonists on Noveria or try to save them, etc. Trying to adapt a trilogy that leaves so many ambiguous choices to the players into a movie is a complete and utter fail.

[ChurchOfZod]

@hobb1t - What panel were you watching? Way to spin everything that was said there. ME movie with Shepard will happen despite the bleating of a few fans with an overblown sense of entitlement.

[The h0bb1t]

Oh? You got me then.
Source?

[Omega-202]

octoberfire wrote...

Except all of your examples weren't a "Choose your own adventure." RE, Harry Potter, Batman, LotR had characters and stories that were defined. I got to pick my Shepard's gender, class, and psychological profile. I got to choose whether Ash or Kaiden died on Virmire. I got to choose whether to kill the colonists on Noveria or try to save them, etc. Trying to adapt a trilogy that leaves so many ambiguous choices to the players into a movie is a complete and utter fail.

And yet other player's choices don't invalidate yours.  How is a film any different?  You know that alternatives exist.  The choices you made are not the only possible outcomes.  I'm willing to bet that you've played through multiple times and you've made different decisiosn in different playthroughs.  Did one of your playthroughs invalidate the others?  

No adaptation is completely faithful anyway.  Just as the series I listed were adaptations, they also took liberties with the storylines.  The differences in an ME movie would be no different than the liberties taken with any other series.  

Also, as said hundreds of times in this thread already: We, the fans are A SUPER MINORITY of the people that would need to see this movie to make it a financial success.  Any "hard feelings" for creating a canon Shepard are irrelevant to the total box office profit.  If they feel they can write a better story from an adaptation than from something new and that the overall quality increases the box office draw more than the loss of TERRIBLE fans like you, its worth it to just adapt the storyline.  

I guarantee they'd pick up 5 new viewers for every one of YOU they'd lose by doing the Reaper storyline.  

[Eternal Dust]

Omega-202 wrote...

octoberfire wrote...

Except all of your examples weren't a "Choose your own adventure." RE, Harry Potter, Batman, LotR had characters and stories that were defined. I got to pick my Shepard's gender, class, and psychological profile. I got to choose whether Ash or Kaiden died on Virmire. I got to choose whether to kill the colonists on Noveria or try to save them, etc. Trying to adapt a trilogy that leaves so many ambiguous choices to the players into a movie is a complete and utter fail.

And yet other player's choices don't invalidate yours.  How is a film any different?  You know that alternatives exist.  The choices you made are not the only possible outcomes.  I'm willing to bet that you've played through multiple times and you've made different decisiosn in different playthroughs.  Did one of your playthroughs invalidate the others?  

No adaptation is completely faithful anyway.  Just as the series I listed were adaptations, they also took liberties with the storylines.  The differences in an ME movie would be no different than the liberties taken with any other series.  

Also, as said hundreds of times in this thread already: We, the fans are A SUPER MINORITY of the people that would need to see this movie to make it a financial success.  Any "hard feelings" for creating a canon Shepard are irrelevant to the total box office profit.  If they feel they can write a better story from an adaptation than from something new and that the overall quality increases the box office draw more than the loss of TERRIBLE fans like you, its worth it to just adapt the storyline.  

I guarantee they'd pick up 5 new viewers for every one of YOU they'd lose by doing the Reaper storyline.  

And with this way of thinking the stigma of crappy videogame-to-movie adaptations continue.

You should be asking yourself why they even need to be making a movie in the first place. Unlike a novel where the visual elements are not there, Mass Effect is already a cinematic experience in and of itself.

Modifié par octoberfire, 23 juillet 2011 - 06:16 .

[Kasces]

Why can't they make a movie that introduces the universe instead of the game? There's no reason they can't a little over two hour movie that is about the FCW, make the Illusive Man the protagonist for the first like half, tell his comic story that intertwines with Saren and the artifact, and at the end of the hour or so of introducing all of that combined with little bits of whatever Anderson was doing, the FCW ends. Then the last 45 minutes or so, make it about the first book  with Anderson as the protagonist and fade to black with Saren talking to Sovereign and talks about Shepard. It establishes antagonists, Anderson, introduces a bit of the universe and gives new comers a reason to go explore the rest themselves. The only problem I see with this is it might feel rushed and Anderson has to be set up well, but it doesn't have to be exactly two hours and this is a video game movie. How high can expectations be? The only benefit of doing a movie just on ME1 is people with PS3s will have more background besides Genesis.

Modifié par Kasces, 23 juillet 2011 - 06:37 .

[ChurchOfZod]

@hobb1t - I'm not your secretary. Spend two minutes searching and you'll find a summary of the panel that you seem to have not understood. Info about the movie's story basis is right in there.

[Omega-202]

octoberfire wrote...

And with this way of thinking the stigma of crappy videogame-to-movie adaptations continue.

You should be asking yourself why they even need to be making a movie in the first place. Unlike a novel where the visual elements are not there, Mass Effect is already a cinematic experience in and of itself.

They should be making a movie because there is more you can do in a film in terms of interpersonal relationships and emotion than you can do in a game.  

The content of the conversations in Mass Effect are top notch, bar-none, the best in all of gaming.  The lines are delivered well and you feel a connection to the characters....but they're not comparable to what you can get in a well acted movie.  

Example: The Virmire choice's emotional impact was completely based on your attachment to the characters.  The event itself, if taken just for its delivery was VERY lackluster.  The final parting words from Shepard, Kaiden and Ashley were all very devoid of true emotion.  There is so much more they could do to that scene in a well acted dialogue than they could do in the game.  In a film, they could show actual tears.  They could have a touching talk between Kaiden and Ashley happening as Shepard runs off to rescue one of them, knowing that they'll never see each other again.  Hell, a film could develop the relationship between Kaiden and Ash that we never really got to see.  

Not to mention all of the arbitrary restrictions that hindered story-telling and immersion for the sake of gameplay.  Why wouldn't your full squad be taking part in certain missions?  Why don't they actually show-off their true potential (Jack/Samara/Liara's full biotics, Garrus actually getting to truly snipe) due to limits to the combat design?

There are so many reasons to adapt the story to film.  There's the emotional impact of choosing what two mannequins say to each other (which I love in the game) or you can see two skilled actors playing out a set of lines and actually showing some emotion in doing so.  You can get physicality into the performance.  You can get fist slamming and sobbing and pacing which despite the ME series's huge advancements, you just don't get in the game.  

[Robert-42]

octoberfire wrote...
And with this way of thinking the stigma of crappy videogame-to-movie adaptations continue.

Compared to many other games beeing adapted, masseffect has a much reacher universe and more interesting/epic story. So the comparison is not as easy.

octoberfire wrote...
You should be asking yourself why they even need to be making a movie in the first place. Unlike a novel where the visual elements are not there, Mass Effect is already a cinematic experience in and of itself.

I am happy to be able in a few years to watch the movie everytime I want with everybody I want within 2 hours instead of having watching the interactive movie within 30 hour.

<provocate>The Masseffect Trilogy-Story is too good to be left just as a game...</provocate>

[Omega-202]

Kasces wrote...

Why can't they make a movie that introduces the universe instead of the game? There's no reason they can't a little over two hour movie that is about the FCW, make the Illusive Man the protagonist for the first like half, tell his comic story that intertwines with Saren and the artifact, and at the end of the hour or so of introducing all of that combined with little bits of whatever Anderson was doing, the FCW ends. Then the last 45 minutes or so, make it about the first book and fade to black with Saren talking to Sovereign and talks about Shepard. It establishes antagonists, Anderson, introduces a bit of the universe and gives new comers a reason to go explore the rest themselves. The only problem I see with this is it might feel rushed if done wrong but it doesnt have to be exactly two hours and this is a video game movie. How high can expectations be. The only benefit of doing a movie just on ME1 is people with PS3s will have more background besides Genesis.

Genesis and origin story movies don't sell well.  Nothing ends up happening other than a big set-up.  That's all a FCW movie would be.  In the end, NOTHING HAPPENS.  There's no conclusion, there's no overarching threat that is overcome, there is nothing but a big let down at the end.  

A FCW movie would come out just like 007: Quantum of Solace.  Great film that goes NOWHERE and does nothing but setup a further storyline.  Great, Bond, you save some villagers from dying of thirst, but you've learned basically nothing about a global terrorist cell that has much larger plans.  

[Kasces]

Omega-202 wrote...

Kasces wrote...

Why can't they make a movie that introduces the universe instead of the game? There's no reason they can't a little over two hour movie that is about the FCW, make the Illusive Man the protagonist for the first like half, tell his comic story that intertwines with Saren and the artifact, and at the end of the hour or so of introducing all of that combined with little bits of whatever Anderson was doing, the FCW ends. Then the last 45 minutes or so, make it about the first book and fade to black with Saren talking to Sovereign and talks about Shepard. It establishes antagonists, Anderson, introduces a bit of the universe and gives new comers a reason to go explore the rest themselves. The only problem I see with this is it might feel rushed if done wrong but it doesnt have to be exactly two hours and this is a video game movie. How high can expectations be. The only benefit of doing a movie just on ME1 is people with PS3s will have more background besides Genesis.

Genesis and origin story movies don't sell well.  Nothing ends up happening other than a big set-up.  That's all a FCW movie would be.  In the end, NOTHING HAPPENS.  There's no conclusion, there's no overarching threat that is overcome, there is nothing but a big let down at the end.  

A FCW movie would come out just like 007: Quantum of Solace.  Great film that goes NOWHERE and does nothing but setup a further storyline.  Great, Bond, you save some villagers from dying of thirst, but you've learned basically nothing about a global terrorist cell that has much larger plans.  

That's a good point but is potentially fixable with Saren as the main antagonist between both TIM and Anderson, showing he obviously has bigger plans, even as the film concludes. The end could satisfy a movie ending while at the same time acting as a teaser for the games instead of a cliffhanger for nothing.  FCW would also only be the first half or so of the film. Want to know the rest? Play the games. It also depends on how the movie is marketed. Then again, may be this does just sound cool in my head.  

Modifié par Kasces, 23 juillet 2011 - 06:44 .

[The h0bb1t]

ChurchOfZod wrote...

@hobb1t - I'm not your secretary. Spend two minutes searching and you'll find a summary of the panel that you seem to have not understood. Info about the movie's story basis is right in there.

I've searched and read two full summaries, but they did not mention ANYTHING about an possible Mass Effect 1 direct game-to-movie movie.
They only stated they have some plans for great scene's and are actually talking about the immense universe Mass Effect has to offer.
They are way to early in development to even say what's the story would be about, they're just letting people know they are working on it.

[ChurchOfZod]

Why are people acting like ME needs to be introduced through an origin film anyway? Mass Effect was introduced to just about all of us through Mass Effect. You know, the first game? The one called Mass Effect that introduced every concept and race perfectly well?

And enough of the "50 hour game in a 2 hour movie WILL NEVER WORK!!!" it was only 50 hours if you completed every side mission, found every mineral, Matriarch writing, League of One insignia, killed every Thresher maw on every random planet, blasted through Pinnacle Station, and grinded until you reached (almost) level 60. If i only did the plot point missions, I could finish Mass Effect in under 4 hours.

Modifié par ChurchOfZod, 23 juillet 2011 - 06:55 .

[Omega-202]

Kasces wrote...


That's a good point but is potentially fixable with Saren as the main antagonist between both TIM and Anderson, showing he obviously has bigger plans, even as the film concludes. FCW would also only be the first half or so of the film. Want to know the rest? Play the games. It also depends on how the movie is marketed. Then again, may be this does just sound cool in my head.  

"Want to know the rest? Play the games."
Seriously?  Do you realize how badly the film would do if it was just a 2 hour COMMERCIAL to sell the videogames?  The reviews would be terrible.  People would hate it.  You're not solving anything by doing that, you'd only cause massive numbers of people to be VERY pissed off because they don't get the end of a coherent story without going out and purchasing a $60 game along with a machine to play it on.  

Making Saren an overarching villain also does nothing to fix the issue I described, if anything, it fulfills exactly the problem I was talking about.  

Movies where they introduce a villain but then have them just sit and bide their time until the sequel (AKA exactly what happened in Bond 22, hence my example) are universally disliked due to that fact.  Every movie, even one where there are planned sequels or events to come later NEEDS some sort of self contained climax and conclusion.  Your proposed film HAS NONE OF THAT.  

Saying "Go buy the game to see the end" would literally destroy the movie.  

[Kasces]

ChurchOfZod wrote...

Why are people acting like ME needs to be introduced through an origin film anyway? Mass Effect was introduced to just about all of us through Mass Effect. You know, the first game? The one called Mass Effect that introduced every concept and race perfectly well?

And enough of the "50 hour game in a 2 hour movie WILL NEVER WORK!!!" it was only 50 hours if you completed every side mission, found ever mineral, Matriarch writing, League of One insignia, killed every Tresher maw on every random planet, blasted through Pinnacle Station, and grinded until you reached (almost) level 60. If i only did the plot point missions, I could finish Mass Effect in under 4 hours.

I'll be seeing the movie either the way, but it just makes sense for the movie to set up stuff. Yeah, we were introduced through a video game, a cinematic experience with choices, so what's the point of re-introducing through a literal cinema with no choice? Why even bother with ME1? Why even bother with ME2? Just read the wiki and you'll get it.

It essentially is just different strokes for different folks- and for Bioware, figuring out what will sell as much as possible- but imo there's just little point in telling a story the video game will always do better. Like I said in another post, perhaps this is what Bioware wants since a good chunk of potential buyers who only own a PS3 only get a comic anyway, so just re-tell the first story so no one anywhere will ever have to bother with ME1.  

[ChurchOfZod]

The h0bb1t wrote...

ChurchOfZod wrote...

@hobb1t - I'm not your secretary. Spend two minutes searching and you'll find a summary of the panel that you seem to have not understood. Info about the movie's story basis is right in there.

I've searched and read two full summaries, but they did not mention ANYTHING about an possible Mass Effect 1 direct game-to-movie movie.
They only stated they have some plans for great scene's and are actually talking about the immense universe Mass Effect has to offer.
They are way to early in development to even say what's the story would be about, they're just letting people know they are working on it.

...

"The writer added that he believes Mass Effect has a mythology as rich and deep as those of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but that they are focusing solely on the first game for the movie version. "

m.ign.com/articles/1183708

"The Writer" being Mark Protosevich.

Modifié par ChurchOfZod, 23 juillet 2011 - 06:55 .

[ChurchOfZod]

Kasces wrote...

ChurchOfZod wrote...

Why are people acting like ME needs to be introduced through an origin film anyway? Mass Effect was introduced to just about all of us through Mass Effect. You know, the first game? The one called Mass Effect that introduced every concept and race perfectly well?

And enough of the "50 hour game in a 2 hour movie WILL NEVER WORK!!!" it was only 50 hours if you completed every side mission, found ever mineral, Matriarch writing, League of One insignia, killed every Tresher maw on every random planet, blasted through Pinnacle Station, and grinded until you reached (almost) level 60. If i only did the plot point missions, I could finish Mass Effect in under 4 hours.

I'll be seeing the movie either the way, but it just makes sense for the movie to set up stuff. Yeah, we were introduced through a video game, a cinematic experience with choices, so what's the point of re-introducing through a literal cinema with no choice? Why even bother with ME1? Why even bother with ME2? Just read the wiki and you'll get it.

It essentially is just different strokes for different folks- and for Bioware, figuring out what will sell as much as possible- but imo there's just little point in telling a story the video game will always do better. Like I said in another post, perhaps this is what Bioware wants since a good chunk of potential buyers who only own a PS3 only get a comic anyway, so just re-tell the first story so no one anywhere will ever have to bother with ME1.  

You seem to be under the impression that this movie is being made to enrich the experience of Mass Effect players. it's being made for a few reasons. Of course to make money. Also to expand the fanbase. It's also being made because some exec somewhere saw an ultra compelling story about an ultra compelling protagonist who fights ultra compelling enemies. To jettison that and focus on anything else instead would be insane if the goal is to have success.

[Kasces]

Omega-202 wrote...

Kasces wrote...


That's a good point but is potentially fixable with Saren as the main antagonist between both TIM and Anderson, showing he obviously has bigger plans, even as the film concludes. FCW would also only be the first half or so of the film. Want to know the rest? Play the games. It also depends on how the movie is marketed. Then again, may be this does just sound cool in my head.  

"Want to know the rest? Play the games."
Seriously?  Do you realize how badly the film would do if it was just a 2 hour COMMERCIAL to sell the videogames?  The reviews would be terrible.  People would hate it.  You're not solving anything by doing that, you'd only cause massive numbers of people to be VERY pissed off because they don't get the end of a coherent story without going out and purchasing a $60 game along with a machine to play it on.  

Making Saren an overarching villain also does nothing to fix the issue I described, if anything, it fulfills exactly the problem I was talking about.  

Movies where they introduce a villain but then have them just sit and bide their time until the sequel (AKA exactly what happened in Bond 22, hence my example) are universally disliked due to that fact.  Every movie, even one where there are planned sequels or events to come later NEEDS some sort of self contained climax and conclusion.  Your proposed film HAS NONE OF THAT.  

Saying "Go buy the game to see the end" would literally destroy the movie.  

I'm not saying go buy the game to see the end of the movie. Like I said, there is no reason the main story could not be satisfied while still leaving people alive and well so that ME1 makes sense. It might have to be well done, you might have to mess around with a few deatils (let the film take liberties, it already will) but it can be done. I meant that in so far as, "want to expand the universe even more? Look at all the other cool Mass Effect media, especially the games!" Not, "well the movie technically isn't finished, too bad lol".

And I was just offering a rough outline of what sounded good to me really, I wasn't trying to say this is what indeed should be done to the letter. I'm not that ignorant to think my poinion matters that much, just offering ideas. I just think actually expanding would be better. The ME novels and comics do it, why can't it be done with a cool movie?

Modifié par Kasces, 23 juillet 2011 - 07:03 .

[Omega-202]

Kasces wrote...
The ME novels and comics do it, why can't it be done with a cool movie?

Because the novels were written to compliment the games.  They were written with fans of the games in mind.  

The movie IS NOT going to be made with that mentality.  Its being made by Legendary Pictures.  Its big enough to be brought out at Comic Con on the same stage as Del Toro and Jeff Bridges.  This movie is made for the larger public.  You can't do what you did with the novels and comics for the movie and still expect a decent return on investment.  

[Kasces]

Omega-202 wrote...

Kasces wrote...
The ME novels and comics do it, why can't it be done with a cool movie?

Because the novels were written to compliment the games.  They were written with fans of the games in mind.  

The movie IS NOT going to be made with that mentality.  Its being made by Legendary Pictures.  Its big enough to be brought out at Comic Con on the same stage as Del Toro and Jeff Bridges.  This movie is made for the larger public.  You can't do what you did with the novels and comics for the movie and still expect a decent return on investment.  

In the end, I just care about it being done well lol. If what makes a decent film is present in the movie, it won't really matter what it's about, and I won't lie and act like I don't have a bias of already being a fan of ME. It just makes me wonder how Mass Effect is ever going to truly expand, if Shepard's story is the only story worth telling.

[axl99]

Movies are also a different storytelling medium. You can't view it at your own pace. You've got roughly 1-3 hours to cram in a story and possibly a couple subplots if a good chunk of it isn't taken up by lengthy dramatic/action sequences [depending on genre].