1154 réponses à ce sujet

[gamer_girl]

I didn't actually read enough of this thread to know if this has been said already, but I'm just gonna say it anyways.

I think people are being far too selfish when it comes to what the story is going to be. To me the best idea seems to be using Shepard as it'll attract people to the games AND it will show us all what we want to see: the alien races and their home planets. However, my only problem with using the Shepard trilogy is that it'll be spoilers to people who haven't played the games, and even if they were to buy them, they'd be unsatisfied because it's something they have already seen. While I know the sub plots may vary depending on player choices, the fact still remains that the main story plot, the reaper invasion, would be spoiled entirely. In light of this, I think the story of some of the NPC's (most likely before they met Shepard) would be most ideal. This would satisfy many of the things fans are after, as well as what could be best for people new to the series:

-back story for our favourite characters
-no spoilers in the Shepard trilogy
-lots of alien races as well as their planets
-attraction for new fans to play the games AND see the characters they saw in the film
-no complaints from people who think it's "cannon" Shepard (although I don't understand these people I put it in anyways)

I don't know what you guys think of this, but it seems like it would work best if we're considering what would please the most people. What might be challenging about it though is that there wouldn't really be a solid main character. Rather a few mains that you would see the stories to simultaneously. If this were to happen I'd assume the more popular characters would be highlighted (Garrus, Tali, and maybe a couple more). Anyway that's just what I was thinking, and I felt like sharing.

[Dazaster Dellus]

@ gamer_girl:

While what you suggest is quite an intriguing idea I am not 100% sure it would work, though I wouldn't mind seeing it myself. The reason I say this ifs because it all comes down to one thing. Money. Profit. Revenue. However you want to say it. I am more than sure they are not going to(or at least trying to) make it a one and done deal. Especially with EA behind Bioware. I don't know if EA is making any money from this endeavor but if they are I can guarantee they will milk this franchise until it is bone dry. That being said, if they are looking to extend the story into a series of movies how will they do that using support characters like Garrus, Tali, Ashley, Anderson or whoever else? I don't think those characters can stand on their own for multiple movies. Is it possible? Of course! Almost anything is. But from a business standpoint that is a risk that many companies aren't willing to make right off the bat with something new. That is why 9 out of 10 HW companies start safe with something they are sure will work and then they make spinoffs, movies with support characters and the like, after they have established themselves.

[gamer_girl]

I guess that's true. I still think Tali would be a great character to go into further depth with - or on a general sense, the quarians. There's s lot of story there with the creation of the geth and they could even throw Saren and Benezia in to show us what we didn't see in ME1. They could even go back to when they left their home planet and had to start using suits. I can see what you're saying though. That and few movies have been non-humancentric, and it probably wouldn't be super successful in attracting an audience if it focused on aliens just because it's less relate-able. I'm totally fine with it being about Shepard. I'm just worried that if they spoil too much about the games, people won't be as interested in buying them because it's something they've already experienced.

[shepskisaac]

A movie about Tali? She's not a main character material, never will be.

[Kilshrek]

Mass Effect 3D : The scalping of the moviegoer.

I'm calling the title right now.

[JerkyJohnny14]

At least mass effect has somewhat hard evidence of producing some sort of movie. For that I am really excited. Ill definitely see it if it ever comes out. The mass effect movie has made it much farther than the halo movie 

[Dazaster Dellus]

gamer_girl wrote...

I guess that's true. I still think Tali would be a great character to go into further depth with - or on a general sense, the quarians. There's s lot of story there with the creation of the geth and they could even throw Saren and Benezia in to show us what we didn't see in ME1. They could even go back to when they left their home planet and had to start using suits. I can see what you're saying though. That and few movies have been non-humancentric, and it probably wouldn't be super successful in attracting an audience if it focused on aliens just because it's less relate-able. I'm totally fine with it being about Shepard. I'm just worried that if they spoil too much about the games, people won't be as interested in buying them because it's something they've already experienced.

Yeah, I would also like to see a movie about the Quarians. Iwould also like to see the Krogan Rebellion and that whole set of events. The good news is that they have an Anime movie coming next year and so far(as far as I know) there is no premise set for that one yet. So it could be about anything. Also Bioware always has the option to make a full length CG movie  as well, like a few other  companies are starting to do. These projects would be more fan based and suited to side stories, back stories, and expanding the universe.

[Dazaster Dellus]

Kilshrek wrote...

Mass Effect 3D : The scalping of the moviegoer.

I'm calling the title right now.

This is one thing I am hoping they do not adopt. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!! Please don't let this be a cheesy 3D movie.

[Dazaster Dellus]

luk4s3d wrote...

JerkyJohnny14 wrote...

At least mass effect has somewhat hard evidence of producing some sort of movie. For that I am really excited. Ill definitely see it if it ever comes out. The mass effect movie has made it much farther than the halo movie 

 Halo just wouldnt work as a movie. That and Microsoft would expect waaay to much!

I kinda disagree with this. Halo would easily work as a movie.   The proof is in the fact that the "Deliver Hope" trailer for Halo Reach was highly praised and it even won an award or two. That was just a 1-2 min trailer. The reason the movie didn't kick off was because they mentioned that Microsoft wanted a ridiculously large budget in excess of 150 million. It was also in combined production from Universal & 20th Century which as far as I know is rare to see two major HW companies co-producing and financing the movie.Anyways they backd out because the original budget of 135 million was exceeded. So I have to say I stand with Microsoft on that one. If no one wants to gve them the necessary resources to get the movie made, don't make the movie. Better to do it right than to do it cheaply and have it end of terrible. Although I don't understand why Microsoft didn't just finance it themselves or at least help.

[Biotic Budah]

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.

I think they will show how things got started, especially if you're going to have the Illusive Man down the road. Better to do it now than with Prequels.

[Ninjapino]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

THANK YOU.  This is pretty much what I've been trying to say this whole time.  I don't get how (as several people have stated) not wanting a movie version of the games is "selfish".  I want them to work on a good story, good atmosphere, and make the Mass Effect universe come to life in a believable fashion.  Trying to make it about the games is going to force their hand to be less about that and more about making things we've already seen be interesting from  a movie stand-point, which basically means "make it bigger and badder then before". 

[Maou]

I hope they dont screw arround.

[CaptainZaysh]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Dude, we get it, you don't like Transformers.  What movie would you like it to be like?

Terror_K wrote...
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.

C'mon, Terror, $140m of real money needs more than "strong main characters and an interesting story".  Taken has strong main characters and an interesting story but you wouldn't want to have spent $140m bucks making it.  Mass Effect needs a colossal story to justify the production budget it will need to depict the universe properly.  It needs a Hero's Journey with the fate of the entire galaxy at stake.

Terror_K wrote...
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.

I do want BioWare to make a lot of money.  I want this to be the next big sci-fi franchise and the only way it will do that is by breaking away from its limiting video game roots.

[CaptainZaysh]

Ninjapino wrote...

THANK YOU.  This is pretty much what I've been trying to say this whole time.  I don't get how (as several people have stated) not wanting a movie version of the games is "selfish".  I want them to work on a good story, good atmosphere, and make the Mass Effect universe come to life in a believable fashion.  Trying to make it about the games is going to force their hand to be less about that and more about making things we've already seen be interesting from  a movie stand-point, which basically means "make it bigger and badder then before". 

It's selfish because if it were your $140m, you'd want the story to be about a hero's desperate struggle to prevent the setting's overarching villains from making the whole galaxy extinct.

[Ninjapino]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Ninjapino wrote...

THANK YOU.  This is pretty much what I've been trying to say this whole time.  I don't get how (as several people have stated) not wanting a movie version of the games is "selfish".  I want them to work on a good story, good atmosphere, and make the Mass Effect universe come to life in a believable fashion.  Trying to make it about the games is going to force their hand to be less about that and more about making things we've already seen be interesting from  a movie stand-point, which basically means "make it bigger and badder then before". 

It's selfish because if it were your $140m, you'd want the story to be about a hero's desperate struggle to prevent the setting's overarching villains from making the whole galaxy extinct.

Why are you stuck on thinking that making the story about Shepard is going to be the only way to draw in an audience?  Again, the basic movie goer is not going to care about Shepard, the Reapers, or any of that.  They are brand new to the universe.  Give them something that will introduce them to the universe, let them learn the races, why they are important, and show the social-political dynamic throughout the galaxy.  Again,the games worked the way they did in introducing all that to you because it let you explore and figure it out for yourself.  If you start with the game triology, you'd have to just flat out explain it all so you can get to the main plot of the geth/reaper invasion because there would be no time otherwise.  If you do that and just shove it all down the viewer's throat so you can "get to the action", it's going to lose all real meaning and any real reason to care about it.   Movies don't have to have a clear cut "hero saves the galaxy" story to be good and make money.  In fact, that's a good way to get people not to care in the first place. 

Modifié par Ninjapino, 09 juillet 2011 - 02:05 .

[CuseGirl]

If you start with the game triology, you'd have to just flat out explain it all so you can get to the main plot of the geth/reaper invasion because there would be no time otherwise.  If you do that and just shove it all down the viewer's throat so you can "get to the action", it's going to lose all real meaning and any real reason to care about it.   Movies don't have to have a clear cut "hero saves the galaxy" story to be good and make money.  In fact, that's a good way to get people not to care in the first place.

While I'm not thrilled about a Mass Effect movie, I actually disagree with your reason why. I simply think vidoe game movies are usually not good because the number of video gamers pales in comparison to the number of movie goers you need to make the movie a success. Also, while the "hero saves the galaxy" theme is cliche and over done, it's the only way you're gonna make a 150-200 million dollar movie successful. Even with Star Wars, a universe with a rich back story and cult following, the bulk of the money was made on the casual movie goer, not the Star Wars nerds buying Luke Skywalker outfits.

The casual movie goer can't name any other Star Wars alien race outside of the Wookies and Ewoks. Other than that, they know that Jabba the Hut is a fat slobbering thing with Leia on a chain.

As for Mass Effect, a sort of Star Wars on PC/Console, you're not going to get the 300 to 500 million in profits to justify making it. Especially if you're gonna remove the cliche Caucasian male who saves the galaxy, romances Ashley, and kills Saren.

Additionally, I'm a black female video gamer who loves movies, both politcal, intellectual, and action. And I would love to see someone other than Sheploo save the galaxy. But I know that some1 who looks like me or doesn't look like Shep or Will Smith won't get that role or sell enuff tickets.

Modifié par CuseGirl, 09 juillet 2011 - 02:17 .

[Terror_K]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Dude, we get it, you don't like Transformers.  What movie would you like it to be like?

I've already said: the likes of Blade Runner, Alien/Aliens, Star Trek II and III, Dune, etc. Even The Fifth Element or Serenity for more recent examples out of the preferred era, or Babylon 5 to give an example of a series. I want it to be good sci-fi with some thought and substance behind, not just a cheap cash-in from Hollywood.

C'mon, Terror, $140m of real money needs more than "strong main characters and an interesting story".  Taken has strong main characters and an interesting story but you wouldn't want to have spent $140m bucks making it.  Mass Effect needs a colossal story to justify the production budget it will need to depict the universe properly.  It needs a Hero's Journey with the fate of the entire galaxy at stake.

It doesn't need to be that epic. Plenty of sci-fi has worked without needing to go to the extreme of having the entire galaxy at stake. Blade Runner didn't even move beyond the confines of one city and was just about the lives of a few androids being at stake. Hardly epic on a grand scale, but fantastic all the same.

I do want BioWare to make a lot of money.  I want this to be the next big sci-fi franchise and the only way it will do that is by breaking away from its limiting video game roots.

That's completely backwards. For several reasons. Beyond the fact that there is far moore freedom for Mass Effect as a game due to its interactive nature on top of many other factors than there ever will be for a linear movie, it's hardly breaking away from its video game roots if it's just going to rehash the same exact story from them, and in a greatly reduced form due to the lack of freedom and time.

Beyond that, the only way Mass Effect will become "the next big sci-fi franchise" in this day and age in the manner you suggest would be for it to ruin itself in the pursuit of doing so. Mass Effect was great because it wasn't the samey mindless, mainstream drivel with too much action and not enough depth as most of the other big-budget blockbusters out there. It's great because it's what sci-fi should be: a nerdy IP for people with something between their ears, not just brainless dreck that appeals to the lowest common denominator. The only way Mass Effect will succeed to those levels is if it turns its back on its roots, sells out and goes completely mainstream.

I don't want to see that at all. I'd rather Mass Effect burn and die at Mass Effect 3 than see an IP with so much potential dragged through the fetid crap that almost every other IP I've enjoyed has for the sake of branching out and appealing to a larger audience. Whatever happened to "different strokes for different folks" lately? Mass Effect has been one of the only fresh IPs to emerge in the past 10 years or so that I've enjoyed seriously, and I'm God-damned sick to friggin' death of going through this same repeated process with almost every sci-fi IP I get into. It either gets cancelled or remade/rebooted into something that just doesn't appeal to me and makes be frustrated and angry at the entertainment industry as a whole. Sci-Fi should be made for sci-fi fans, not for the same damn audience that almost everything else is being catered towards anyway. I'd rather Mass Effect get a respectful short life like Firefly did than follow that path. It was bad enough that ME2 already leaned that way a tad, I don't want to see it keep going in that direction even more.

Again, the only way Mass Effect will do what you want is for it to cease being Mass Effect and become something else. No thanks.

[Spinotech]

exskeeny wrote...

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

I would think that the success or failure of a "short term war ended diplomatically" movie would depend on how the movie is structured.  If the movie had large battles for over 95% of the movie, less likely due to the scope of FCW, then a diplomatic ending would feel unsatisfying.  However, if lore and background are just as important as action, then a diplomatic ending would feel more satisfying.  For example, perhaps politics and diplomacy could be a running theme.  If you have a running theme and the ending is in that same vein, I wouldn't think it would be dissapointing or seem like a cop-out.

Of course I view the end result of the FCW as more important than the FCW itself.  In my opinion the FCW is a symbol of our entry into a galactic community.  As a corollary, a diplomatic ending is fitting because our introduction into a wider galactic community necessitates diplomacy and politics to succeed in the old Citadel two-step (cookie for anyone who gets the reference).  In conclusion, the FCW is not important in and of itself, it's our introduction to a wider galactic community that is important.

Granted, the actual success or failure will lie with the audience members unfamiliar with the series.  If the general audience is say 17 or older, then a diplomatic ending may be better received.  If the audience members are younger or do not grasp the diplomatic message and its significance, then the diplomatic ending will not be as well received.  

[Dazaster Dellus]

Ninjapino wrote...

 I don't get how (as several people have stated) not wanting a movie version of the games is "selfish".  I wantthem to work on a good story, good atmosphere, and make the Mass Effect universe come to life in a believable fashion.  Trying to make it about the games is going to force their hand to be less about that and more about making things we've already seen be interesting from  a movie stand-point, which basically means "make it bigger and badder then before". 

To answer your question, The statements in bold are why it is considered selfish. A lot of you are only thinking about what you want as opposed to stepping back and looking at the big picture and what is best for the series as a starting point for the MassAudience. For Bioware to create an all new story because it would be something you haven't seen yet is selfish reasoning.

[Terror_K]

Dazaster Dellus wrote...

Ninjapino wrote...

 I don't get how (as several people have stated) not wanting a movie version of the games is "selfish".  I wantthem to work on a good story, good atmosphere, and make the Mass Effect universe come to life in a believable fashion.  Trying to make it about the games is going to force their hand to be less about that and more about making things we've already seen be interesting from  a movie stand-point, which basically means "make it bigger and badder then before". 

To answer your question, The statements in bold are why it is considered selfish. A lot of you are only thinking about what you want as opposed to stepping back and looking at the big picture and what is best for the series as a starting point for the MassAudience. For Bioware to create an all new story because it would be something you haven't seen yet is selfish reasoning.

And I suppose a starving orphan is selfish for wanting food and parents too? <_<

[Dazaster Dellus]

Terror_K wrote...

Dazaster Dellus wrote...

Ninjapino wrote...

 I don't get how (as several people have stated) not wanting a movie version of the games is "selfish".  I wantthem to work on a good story, good atmosphere, and make the Mass Effect universe come to life in a believable fashion.  Trying to make it about the games is going to force their hand to be less about that and more about making things we've already seen be interesting from  a movie stand-point, which basically means "make it bigger and badder then before". 

To answer your question, The statements in bold are why it is considered selfish. A lot of you are only thinking about what you want as opposed to stepping back and looking at the big picture and what is best for the series as a starting point for the MassAudience. For Bioware to create an all new story because it would be something you haven't seen yet is selfish reasoning.

And I suppose a starving orphan is selfish for wanting food and parents too? <_<

Oh stop  with the overexaggerated comparisons!

Also your statement doesn't even apply correctly to the situation. SMH

Modifié par Dazaster Dellus, 09 juillet 2011 - 03:23 .

[Terror_K]

Dazaster Dellus wrote...

Oh stop  with the overexaggerated comparisons!

Also your statement doesn't even apply correctly to the situation. SMH

Why not? Why exactly is it selfish for a Mass Effect and sci-fi fan to want just one little movie to come along and actually be catered to them instead of the oceans of masses out there who have films made for them on a damn near weekly basis? Why is it selfish for an existing fan to expect a movie based on an IP they like to be made to cater to them more than for a bunch of people who haven't even heard of it before in most cases?

Seriously... I don't get the mentality of some people. I really don't. To essentially say that "the end justifies the means" and that it's worth Mass Effect no longer being Mass Effect anymore and taking a huge step backwards just for the sake of succeeding in the eyes of the mass public. To sabotage an IP deliberately for the sake of everybody enjoying it as much as you. It seriously makes the original Twilight Zone look damn right accurate in so many ways: you could base a whole episode around it:

(Sci-fi fan plays Mass Effect for the first time)
Fan: This is great! I want Mass Effect to be loved by the world, no matter what!
(Fan watches TV)
Reporter: Hit video game Mass Effect is being made into a movie, as a direct adaptation of the games.
Fan: Yes! Just what I wanted! Now everybody will love it as much as me!
(Fan goes to movie)
Fan: What is this? This isn't Mass Effect?! Saren didn't kill Shepard's parents and turians don't have feathers! Why is Ashley in high heels with her boobs half out?! Everything is so rushed! Oh, geez... Sovereign just outright explained the Reapers' whole purpose right there! This is awful!
(Fan watches TV)
Reporter: Mass Effect does wonders at the box office, paving the way for the franchise. Its massive popularity will see three sequels made, and all future games, novels and tie-ins now related to this fresh new take on a stale old property.
Fan: No! This isn't what I wanted! NOOOOOOOOO!!!

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 juillet 2011 - 03:45 .

[Rovay]

Overdramatic much, Terror_K?