1154 réponses à ce sujet

[CaptainZaysh]

Mesina2 wrote...

Majority of audiance who will watch this movie are the ones who played Mass Effect.

Nah they have to go for a bigger audience.  The game audience is, what, 2 million tops?  And they can only charge ten bucks for a ticket.  So they need to appeal to the general moviegoing public which is why the movie won't be about a codex entry.

[ThePwener]

I love it how here someone says "it won't be like that" and instantly it's true. You don't know man, so don't pretend you do. The movie could be based on anything in the games or out of them.

[CaptainZaysh]

Obviously, but I'm trying to explain why the only option for it to be successful is to base it on the Shepard story.

Movies need to gross 2.5x production to be considered good successes. The gamer audience is what, 2 million? So if they could somehow get all of us to watch it, at $10 a ticket the maximum budget they could allocate would be: $8m.

Which is $1 million bucks less than it took to make Barbarella.

So - unless Avi Arad bought the rights in order to take it straight to video, simple mathematics tell us they need to appeal to a bigger audience than just the gamers. Which means they need to make a movie that is as "fun & watchable" as the new JJ Abrams Star Trek (budget: $140m).

And if you were going to sink a hundred and forty million dollars of your own money into a movie, would you want it to be about an action hero saving the galaxy from extinction, or a skirmish based on a misunderstanding that was diplomatically resolved?

[Spinotech]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Spinotech wrote...

 ArkkAngel007, those were well thought responses and I agree with you in every regard.  

My idea for FCW is:

Spino, do you really think you can start a summer blockbuster with a long monologue about space exploration, which leads to a long talk in a bar about some dude's career progression, followed by a board meeting?

First, it is my opinion that it is necessary to explain what events led up to the FCW.  Namely, these events include: the discovery of the Prothean ruins on Mars, the discovery of the Charon Relay, and Grissom's mission to travel to the other side of the relay.  As I said in my idea, you would see the discovery of the Prothean ruins before the monologue starts.  

Therefore all the monologue would have to cover would be: how technology changed, why it led to the founding of the Alliance, how the data cache led to the charon relay, that Grissom was the man to lead a mission to the other side of the relay, and the construction of arcturus and the founding of Shanxi.  Yes, it is a long monologue, but it covers key information, especially for those unfamiliar with the series, and could be trimmed to what five minutes with the bare bones information.  Think of it like the opening of the Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring.  I will admit that the amount of background information required for audience members unfamilar with the series is what makes me think, other reasons included, a movie based off the events of the game would be a bad idea.

Second, the "long talk in a bar about some dude's career progression" could be limited to their military record, why they left, and why they do not want to return.  Why they left and why they do not want to return could easilly be connected. It is primarily intended to provide characterization of a new character that isn't a big name like Grissom or Anderson.  Anything in the Mass Effect universe should have deep characters, not grunts that just shoot things.

Third, the board meeting is to show the politics of the situation.  

Lastly, I must ask you what you would want to see IF the movie was based on FCW.  What do you think it should be like, IF that's what they make the movie about?

[Terror_K]

Again, there's more to Mass Effect than just Shepard. There are all kinds of different stories they could do besides the game ones that could be interesting, FCW aside. Or do you actually believe that once the Shepard trilogy of games is over that Mass Effect is done and there's no point doing anything else because it won't be interesting. Shepard is all they have... is that what you really think.

Also, the logic is contradictory. If they need to appeal to a mainstream audience that might not have even heard about Mass Effect at all, then why would they need to base it around the games to garner interest in the film? If they're ignorant of the games, why would the games' hype and a direct adaptation be needed for it to work? They already have next to no knowledge about them because they aren't fans, so its silly to say that you need to directly adapt what's there when they don't know of it except for a name and that it's a sci-fi video game.

[CaptainZaysh]

Spinotech wrote...

First, it is my opinion that it is necessary to explain what events led up to the FCW.  

Why, though?  It's perfectly possible to play through Mass Effect 1 and understand it in its entirety without having the first idea who Gus Grissom is (and in fact what the First Contact War was).  Why does the movie audience need to know this stuff?

Spinotech wrote...
I will admit that the amount of background information required for audience members unfamilar with the series is what makes me think, other reasons included, a movie based off the events of the game would be a bad idea.

No background information was required to start Mass 1.

Spinotech wrote...
Second, the "long talk in a bar about some dude's career progression" could be limited to their military record, why they left, and why they do not want to return.  Why they left and why they do not want to return could easilly be connected. It is primarily intended to provide characterization of a new character that isn't a big name like Grissom or Anderson.  Anything in the Mass Effect universe should have deep characters, not grunts that just shoot things.

But without establishing this character as a hero, what makes you think anyone in the audience would or should care about his career plans?

Spinotech wrote...
Third, the board meeting is to show the politics of the situation.  

Like the board meeting scene right at the beginning of Star Wars, where the audience learns the politics behind Vader's pursuit of Leia?

Spinotech wrote...
Lastly, I must ask you what you would want to see IF the movie was based on FCW.  What do you think it should be like, IF that's what they make the movie about?

I honestly think it's an irredeemably bad idea and that no amount of execution could save it.

[CaptainZaysh]

Terror_K wrote...

Again, there's more to Mass Effect than just Shepard. There are all kinds of different stories they could do besides the game ones that could be interesting, FCW aside. Or do you actually believe that once the Shepard trilogy of games is over that Mass Effect is done and there's no point doing anything else because it won't be interesting. Shepard is all they have... is that what you really think.

Well, video game sequels aren't really the same thing, since they won't need to sell 25 million copies to be viable.  So games can have smaller stories and be successful for other reasons.  (Personally I can't wait for the sandbox game where you play a C-Sec agent.)  This is why most games can get away with godawful stories, and games with good stories can get away with what would be considered mortally hammy or clunky writing in more demanding media like movies and novels.

Terror_K wrote...
Also, the logic is contradictory. If they need to appeal to a mainstream audience that might not have even heard about Mass Effect at all, then why would they need to base it around the games to garner interest in the film? If they're ignorant of the games, why would the games' hype and a direct adaptation be needed for it to work? They already have next to no knowledge about them because they aren't fans, so its silly to say that you need to directly adapt what's there when they don't know of it except for a name and that it's a sci-fi video game.

As for the movie, the reason it needs to have an awesome story is that 25 million people will not pay ten bucks and give up their Saturday night just to see any old s**t.  It doesn't necessarily need to be about Shepard per se, but it does need to be a story just as good as the Hero's Journey of Mass 1 otherwise people will just watch something better instead.

So if it's not Shepard you still need a story about a heroic struggle to save the galaxy against insurmountable odds - FCW just does not qualify by any rational standard.  Why bother creating a new Hero's Journey from scratch when you already have an awesome one just begging to be made into a summer blockbuster?

[Bocks]

At times like this I cry for the fact that Drew Karpyshyn abandoned Mass Effect

y u do dis drew

[Terror_K]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Why bother creating a new Hero's Journey from scratch when you already have an awesome one just begging to be made into a summer blockbuster?

To have something new, different and original that adds to the lore and universe instead of retreading old ground and taking a huge step backwards. Mass Effect is already an interactive movie where you can make your own choices and do things outside the scope of a movie. Taking away that interactivity, chose choices and watering it down to a limited, linear script is akin to making the next Mass Effect game using the Odyssey engine KotOR used and releasing it on the original XBox and PS2.

It would just be a waste and if they did it it would just say to me that BioWare is selling out to Hollywood and cares more about appealing to the mainstream than making a product for existing fans. About the only good that would come out of it would be things like the possible release of some Mass Effect toys and merchandise, such as action figures, that weren't around when ME1 was first out (assuming of course the director doesn't decide to suddenly give turians feathers, asari long purple hair and redesign The Normandy, etc.)

[Chewin]

Chris Priestly wrote...

How cool is that? Our own Casey Hudson sitting on a panel with Del Toro, Bridges, Cooper and other film luminaries.

It's not Casey who's meeting Del Toro and Bridges, it's they who're meeting CaseyB)

(at least that's how I see it)

[ArkkAngel007]

 Pushing Eden Prime War and FCW debates aside, there have to be some things the film MUST have to work.  And yes, this has to do what the general audience will need, not fans.

1. The main protagonist is human.  No one will really care about a Turian or Asari protagonist because visually, the audience knows their fake.  At least with a human the audience knows that's a real person (even if he/she is just acting) and makes it easier to invest in them.

2. Story needs to be focused.    This isn't a 40 hour game with a dozen major characters with hundreds of problems.  Protagonist, LI (if needed), couple of supporting characters, those that only serve a plot purpose, and then the antagonist.  

3. It has to make sense.  I keep hearing the excuse of "We didn't need to read about Grissom" or other very minute details that, I agree, no one has to know.  BUT you can't have a million complex issues crop up without explanation, such as the genophage, biotics, and human/batarian relations.  And a simple couple lines won't do any of these justice and possibly leave the audience more confused.  Focus on one major issue and revolve your story around that.   

4. Needs to be smaller in scope than the games.  That means only a few aliens and planets, and only a few major action sequences.  This is from a financial standpoint.  No one will invest heavily on an untried film.  Forget the game sales.  Again, this is not about the fans, but a whole new business venue.  If it doesn't do well enough in theaters, it has to at least make up the production costs for some profit.

Those are the minimum 4, which are overly simplified, and there are other necessities that would take too long to get into. 

[Bad King]

MrDizaztar wrote...

I would like to point something out to everyone crying about the film being a possible Shepard Trilogy. Is the only reason why you don't want a Shepard Trilogy is because it might "canonize" Shepard? Frankly that is just selfish. It is like saying that you don't like somebody else Shepard because it is a different canon from your own. Or is because you don't want to explain the differences between the movie and the game? Seriously that is shallow to say the least. I would love to see a film version of Shepard like the same way I like seeing other people's Shepards.

I'd rather see them expand the Mass Effect universe rather than just recycle and simplify the games' plots. The universe doesn't revolve around Shepard.

Modifié par Bad King, 08 juillet 2011 - 02:15 .

[CaptainZaysh]

Terror_K wrote...

To have something new, different and original that adds to the lore and universe instead of retreading old ground and taking a huge step backwards. Mass Effect is already an interactive movie where you can make your own choices and do things outside the scope of a movie. Taking away that interactivity, chose choices and watering it down to a limited, linear script is akin to making the next Mass Effect game using the Odyssey engine KotOR used and releasing it on the original XBox and PS2.

Another way to look at would be to say that a Mass Effect movie can do things outside the scope of a game.  Like have stunning action set pieces instead of endless cover-based shootouts; pacy, engaging dialogue instead of long expository monologues; and a fast-paced coherent story instead of a rambling 30 hour mess involving discovering mineral deposits and doing fetch quests in order to get a garage pass.

Terror_K wrote...
It would just be a waste and if they did it it would just say to me that BioWare is selling out to Hollywood and cares more about appealing to the mainstream than making a product for existing fans. 

I've already demonstrated why the game's fan base is simply not big enough to be the target market for this.  Is what you want for BioWare to make this at a huge financial loss?

[CaptainZaysh]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

1. The main protagonist is human.  No one will really care about a Turian or Asari protagonist because visually, the audience knows their fake.  At least with a human the audience knows that's a real person (even if he/she is just acting) and makes it easier to invest in them.

Agreed.  And more than that, the main protagonist has to be a heroic human who undergoes the Hero's Journey.

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
2. Story needs to be focused.    This isn't a 40 hour game with a dozen major characters with hundreds of problems.  Protagonist, LI (if needed), couple of supporting characters, those that only serve a plot purpose, and then the antagonist.  

Agreed.  It can't carry any extra fat.

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
3. It has to make sense.  I keep hearing the excuse of "We didn't need to read about Grissom" or other very minute details that, I agree, no one has to know.  BUT you can't have a million complex issues crop up without explanation, such as the genophage, biotics, and human/batarian relations.  And a simple couple lines won't do any of these justice and possibly leave the audience more confused.  Focus on one major issue and revolve your story around that.  

Disagree.  A movie audience is perfectly capable of grasping concepts such as you mention without some kind of detailed prior briefing.  We learned about The Force by observing it.  We can learn about biotics the same way.  We learned about The One Ring's corrupting influence through Gollum and Boromir.  We can learn about the genophage through Wrex's arc.  Good writers don't tell, they show.

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
4. Needs to be smaller in scope than the games.  That means only a few aliens and planets, and only a few major action sequences.  This is from a financial standpoint.  No one will invest heavily on an untried film.  Forget the game sales.  Again, this is not about the fans, but a whole new business venue.  If it doesn't do well enough in theaters, it has to at least make up the production costs for some profit.

Disagree.  If the story is small, few people will be interested in seeing it.  The film makers will invest whatever they need to invest in order to attract the audience.  Making a $10m movie that nobody wants to see makes much less financial sense than making a $140m movie that everybody wants to see.

[Ninjapino]

@captain

Yes, the story does need to appeal to a larger audience. An audience that knows nor cares who Scrapyard is other than some guy on the box art. They do not know or care about him or his story. You can easily have a new protagonist (like the books have Kahlee) and still have it appeal to people. They don't need it to be about "that guy from the game".

[ArkkAngel007]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

1. The main protagonist is human.  No one will really care about a Turian or Asari protagonist because visually, the audience knows their fake.  At least with a human the audience knows that's a real person (even if he/she is just acting) and makes it easier to invest in them.

Agreed.  And more than that, the main protagonist has to be a heroic human who undergoes the Hero's Journey.

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
2. Story needs to be focused.    This isn't a 40 hour game with a dozen major characters with hundreds of problems.  Protagonist, LI (if needed), couple of supporting characters, those that only serve a plot purpose, and then the antagonist.  

Agreed.  It can't carry any extra fat.

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
3. It has to make sense.  I keep hearing the excuse of "We didn't need to read about Grissom" or other very minute details that, I agree, no one has to know.  BUT you can't have a million complex issues crop up without explanation, such as the genophage, biotics, and human/batarian relations.  And a simple couple lines won't do any of these justice and possibly leave the audience more confused.  Focus on one major issue and revolve your story around that.  

Disagree.  A movie audience is perfectly capable of grasping concepts such as you mention without some kind of detailed prior briefing.  We learned about The Force by observing it.  We can learn about biotics the same way.  We learned about The One Ring's corrupting influence through Gollum and Boromir.  We can learn about the genophage through Wrex's arc.  Good writers don't tell, they show.

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
4. Needs to be smaller in scope than the games.  That means only a few aliens and planets, and only a few major action sequences.  This is from a financial standpoint.  No one will invest heavily on an untried film.  Forget the game sales.  Again, this is not about the fans, but a whole new business venue.  If it doesn't do well enough in theaters, it has to at least make up the production costs for some profit.

Disagree.  If the story is small, few people will be interested in seeing it.  The film makers will invest whatever they need to invest in order to attract the audience.  Making a $10m movie that nobody wants to see makes much less financial sense than making a $140m movie that everybody wants to see.

I agree with all but to clarify for the last part, the story doesn't have to be small.  The film itself though has to be conservative at a production standpoint.  Trust me, I'd love an Eden Prime War film followed by the Collector Crisis (Is there an official name for the ME2 events by the way, or is that all under the rug stuff?), but it is just not possible for the first film to have enough investment to have the proper production value.  And $140 million is a very steep budget for an untried film.  Star Trek only had a $140 million budget because of a) JJ and it was already a house hold staple.  Mass Effect hasn't reached that point yet.  

The important part is to establish the universe, show the magic of ME, bring in the dough, and then blow them away in the sequels.  I'm not saying the beginning is going to be drab, far from it.  But more action doesn't always equal more money.

[Dazaster Dellus]

Ninjapino wrote...

My whole opinion that it should not be Shepard simply comes down to this. The MEU is huge. Majority of stories, be it video games or books, that get adapted to movies follow a basic Point A to Point B narrative. Those stories have been told. We know them. If the movie follows it as close as possible, it's great. Other times, when it takes liberties, it's also great. Point is, those have an established narrative. The story has been told and there is nothing else to tell, so whether you stick to it or not, you're only gaining, not losing.

Something as big as Mass Effect, though.....why tell that story when we already know that one yet are fully aware that there is plenty more to tell. That would have been as if the new Star Trek movie was just a remake of season one of the original series. Would it have been fun? Sure. Would it have been as good as the new Star Trek. Probably not. It could have been a good "movie", but most people would be bored because they know the plot already.

Basically, why not? Why be satisfied with a re-hash of what you already know? People use Bladerunner as and example, but it was LOOSELY based off Androids. Again, though, it was a single story. That world could easily been expanded, but no hint was given that there was anything else interesting to tell about it. Mass Effect has given us plenty of hints that there are plenty of stories to tell. Some of those have been explored in the books and comics, but there is still plenty more to tell. Am I saying "base it on FCW"? No. But, if they chose that to be the main conflict, but let the universe as a whole be the main character......then yes. I'd be happy with that. (Again, not saying it needs to be FCW, just saying it shouldn't be the trilogy we already know.)

This post completely proved one of my points. It doesn't matter what you want, or what I want or anyone on here for that matter.  Yes, we already know the story but for every 1 gamer that has played ME there are thousands of others who haven't. So why should they make a movie about other MEU stuff just to please you or me or any other gamer when they can use a story that they already have established to bring new people into the universe? They might even get that many more people to buy the game as well. It is simply better business. Also, just because they make a movie based on Shepard's story or any other pre-existing story doesn't mean it will follow exactly to that story. They may omit things to entice more people to play the games and get the full story. Or they may add a bunch of new stuff that they wanted to put into the games or books but they didn't have time. That's the power of creative freedom.

Modifié par Dazaster Dellus, 08 juillet 2011 - 05:47 .

[Dazaster Dellus]

OAN, I will say this. The thing I care about most is that Bioware and more specifically Casey Hudson will actually stay right on top of the movie production team and tell them how things should be in the MEU. Most videogame movies don't have reps from their respective companies on sets to help an give their input. They just sell the rights for a quick buck and move on. It should be a symbiotic relationship between Legendary & Bioware. I also hope BW doesn't get careless thinking about $$$ and decide to let Legendary do their own thing. That is the fastest way to kill a vg-movie franchise.

Also, I would probably have gone with Zach Snyder as director for this movie as well. Personal Choice. Minus Sucker Punch(Which wasn't as "horrible" as some critics claim. It wasn't his best movie but far better than most movies out there) he has an awesome track record for a director.

[Vertigo_1]

Schedule (with time) and just some info:

mysched.comic-con.org/event/fa45094a9c8e549f266778f0c33816ba

"Legendary Pictures holds its first-ever Comic-Con panel and shares an early look at some of the movies on the company's upcoming film slate. Fans will be able to access Legendary's plans, garner sneak peeks at their movies in preproduction, and hear from filmmakers and cast members from the upcoming Pacific Rim, Seventh Son, Paradise Lost, and Mass Effect. Panel participants include Jeff Bridges, Bradley Cooper, Guillermo del Toro, Ben Barnes, Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Alicia Vikander, Alex Proyas, Sergei Bodrov, Travis Beacham, Mark Protosevich, and Casey Hudson."

Friday, July 22nd from 12:45PM to 1:45PM.

Modifié par Vertigo_1, 08 juillet 2011 - 08:52 .

[kill_switch_423]

Fredvdp wrote...

lazuli wrote...

MarchWaltz wrote...

Whoever Del Toro is, should change his last name to taco.

Heh.

Racism?

I'd say this failed attempt at humour was about culture, not race. People draw the racism card way too quickly.

Get it now?  It's not a jab at the man himself, simply a play off of his name.  Also, Del Taco is delicious.

[exskeeny]

As much as I would enjoy to see FCW in more detail, a short term war ended diplomatically does not a good movie make.

[Terror_K]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Another way to look at would be to say that a Mass Effect movie can do things outside the scope of a game.  Like have stunning action set pieces instead of endless cover-based shootouts; pacy, engaging dialogue instead of long expository monologues; and a fast-paced coherent story instead of a rambling 30 hour mess involving discovering mineral deposits and doing fetch quests in order to get a garage pass.

Still a waste of time. I've still seen it before, and what you describe knowing Hollywood today would just be filled with over-the-top action and Michael Bay'splosions that would detract away from Mass Effect's style.

I've already demonstrated why the game's fan base is simply not big enough to be the target market for this.  Is what you want for BioWare to make this at a huge financial loss?

No you haven't, because you seem to be under the false assumption that it has to be based on the game trilogy to branch out to a mainstream audience, despite the contradictory fact that if they don't know about the games, it needing to be about them is meaningless. It just has to have strong main characters and an interesting story. The other aspects of Mass Effect should take care of the rest (awesome looking aliens, sci-fi visuals, etc.). It also doesn't have to be the same over-the-top moronic drivel as most cheap cash-in movies these days. There are plenty of sci-fi fans out there desperate for another good movie, because sci-fi is sorely neglected these days (there isn't even a really good sci-fi series on at the moment since Stargate Atlantis finished and Moore's BSG whimpered out with Season 4).

Mass Effect was supposed to be a homage to sci-fi greats such as Blade Runner, Alien(s), Star Trek II and III, etc. so it should be done in a similar vein. You make it sound like you actually want it to be a cheap cash-in aimed less at fans of classic 1970/1980's-era sci-fi and more at immature kids who weren't even alive in the 1970's or 1980's, just for the sake of BioWare wanting to make a lot of money. You make it sound like you want it to be twisted into something akin to the modern Transformers movies or G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, etc. and almost every other cheap video-game movie. Mass Effect as a movie could break the mold by sticking to its guns, style and lore and adding to the universe rather than rebooting, retconning and creating a cheap, tacky sell-out alternate version that betrays everything about it.

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 juillet 2011 - 10:27 .

[kill_switch_423]

Terror_K wrote...


You make it sound like you want it to be twisted into something akin to the modern Transformers movies or G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, etc. and almost every other cheap video-game movie.

For the record, neither Transformers nor GI Joe are based off of games.  I agree with your argument completely though.  :innocent:

[Terror_K]

kill_switch_423 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...


You make it sound like you want it to be twisted into something akin to the modern Transformers movies or G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, etc. and almost every other cheap video-game movie.

For the record, neither Transformers nor GI Joe are based off of games.  I agree with your argument completely though.  :innocent:

Sorry, I could have worded that better. I meant those as non-video game examples of really bad modern mainstream cash-ins, in addition to the video game ones (Max Payne and Hitman come to mind).