106 réponses à ce sujet

[ZuzuAmandi]

Honestly, if they're gonna do this I'd rather it be CGI like the ME2/3 launch trailers. Those looked fantastic & not at all Pixar-y (except for the little girl at the start of the ME3 trailer)
Plus they would be able to keep the original look & voices of characters.

[Tevinter Soldier]

It's sexist in the first place that they wouldn't even consider a woman to play Shepard. I realise it's a horrendous business in Hollywood that it's all about making money when really, you know, artistic value still has some place in cinema. Not much, but some. Again, having a good role model for girls and young women would've been nice instead of yet another grizzly white guy playing the lead. 

 

I mean seriously, there are great actors, men of colour, who could play the lead but also won't get it (Oh look at that racism). Seriously, Idris Elba, Oded Fehr, Jason Momoa. All these great guys who could pull it off won't get casted either. 

 

 

Really? Seriously? So just assuming it'd be bad because of a female lead? (Because that's not sexist at all.) There are incredible female actors out there that could easily pull off Shepard. Danai Gurira, The Walking Dead; Antje Traue, Pandorum; Rinko Kikuchi, Pacific Rim. So on and so forth.

 

It's unfortunate that these ass hats won't consider women for the role over making money when really, the benefit could be like what Alien did in the 80s. 

 

im not disagreeing with and no it wouldn't be bad because of a female lead it would be bad with the female lead they'd pick.

theres plenty that could pull off shepard but they won't pick them.

 

they want a HUGE name attached to it that fits a demographic which means they will go the sexiest route choose a female they believe will attract the most audiences rather then the best person for the role, they will make shepard archetype they believe the movie goers want.

 

they will do the same with a male shepard i give it until the second act before he for some inexplicably reason ends up shirtless showing off his abs. Its only about money thats it, if they believed the film would do just as well if not better with a female lead they'd cast one. but this will be your usual bottom of the barrel film. (which we will all hate) that just cashes in.

 

I get what your saying but for reasons I've outlined they won't do it and if they did do it, there'd be more then just you shouting sexest because they will choose a lead on how she looks not how well she act's. (and thats not me being sexist thats me having no faith in hollywood) If this was being pitched as something original with a good budget then yes they would take their time and consider a good actor for the role, but this is not that film.

 

even the male actor is likely end up being matt damon or ben afflict despite them both being shitty actors.

[katamuro]

Well they could do the First Contact war in the movie. Or something like that. Maybe even some kind of side-story that would intersect with some of the characters from the games but not all. Lets just hope they dont do another Paragon Lost. 

[Drone223]

as you said most chose to play as a male.

target audience for video game movies is young males.

 

it doesn't matter what the break down of overall gamers are. theres only a few things that matter:

 

A the demographic their aiming for, in this case an action movie in space (its not going to Sci fi hell the games not all that high Sci Fi) focus groups still show this is a male dominated genre (as are sci fi films)

 

B the majority of players played as a male shepard, on that basis the core audience suggests that a male shepard is more likely what they accepted because its what they expect to see.

 

its not sexist, its money video game movies rarely make a ton of cash, no studio is going to risk

A ) having a character its target demographic don't identify with. (like it not the ME movie is not for gamers its for movie audiences)

B ) risk alienating the core supporter base.

 

what would be sexiest would be to cast a female lead and portraying her as little more then a sex object to keep the target demographic.

 

understand this movie is a cash in buy the movie studios, they dont care about the script the budget or the plot. This is not the sort of film that a studio is going to use to show how progressive and thought provoking they are.

Stop looking at this movie as a Sci-Fi film and look at it how the studio's do….. a big screen adaption of a highly grossing video game thats it be all and end all they won't even want it to be a mature film.

 

Even if they cast a woman its going to be some big busted piece that is horrible at acting that people pretend she's good when infact jennifer lopez is even a better actor then her……….Yeap it's yet another Angelina Jolie movie.(despite her double mastectomy she still has a 36C bust)

 

^This, its most likely going to be nothing more than a cheap cash grab by Hollywood nothing more. 99% of the time, movies based of games are terrible, so its better to have little or no expectations for this film and I think most ME fans (including myself) would rather not have film about Shepard at all.

[PSUHammer]

I think it'd be great if they got Mark Vanderloo as Shepard then dubbed over his voice with Mark Meer's lip-syncing.

 

That would be horrible.  A model who can't act and a VA dubbing his lines like an old kung fu movie.  I'll pass.  I would rather see a good actor play the part.

[PSUHammer]

It's sexist in the first place that they wouldn't even consider a woman to play Shepard. I realise it's a horrendous business in Hollywood that it's all about making money when really, you know, artistic value still has some place in cinema. Not much, but some. Again, having a good role model for girls and young women would've been nice instead of yet another grizzly white guy playing the lead. 

 

That isn't sexist.  It is purely statistical business.  If over 75% of the gaming audience is men and choose male Shep, then they want to focus on that.  It is about brand positioning.

 

Sexist would be not choosing a woman simply based on the fact that it is a woman.

 

Come on people...

[Zanata-Gamer]

I like Female Shepard too but .... 

 

Movies based on games never work out, always run the story and the actors are never similar to the original game, a good example is Max Payne film ... and many others. 

 

But ... how Mass Effect is a rich and criative universe, maybe a spin-off could be good ... maybe ....   

[zestalyn]

That isn't sexist.  It is purely statistical business.  If over 75% of the gaming audience is men and choose male Shep, then they want to focus on that.  It is about brand positioning.

 

Sexist would be not choosing a woman simply based on the fact that it is a woman.

 

Come on people...

OKAY. 
According to the ESA, 47% of the American gaming population is FEMALE. 

http://www.theesa.co...ESA_EF_2012.pdf

That's almost HALF.

Sorry I don't mean to come raging in all snarky and on a high-horse, but it's just really horribly unfortunate how the gaming culture is constantly falsely perceived as a male-dominated culture as if this was the 80s or something.
 

People need to understand that it's NOT so that female gamers and game-industry professionals don't have to deal with sexism and sexual harassment and other bs under the hands of male gamer privilege and a male-dominated industry all the time, from attending game conventions as a fan or a professional, to playing online and men finding out you're a female player (Look it up, it's a real thing. Try to find a female game enthusiast who hasn't had to deal with that).

Dev companies need to realize they would not be digging their own grave by trying to appeal to half of their existing and quickly growing market (Not to mention women occupy half the planet, so what do they've got to lose) 

A Hollywood Commander Shepard will NEVER be a woman, not because most gamers are male (because again, that is becoming increasingly less true), but because that's the way our stubbornly patriarchal society works. Even when the numbers suggest otherwise, our culture will always prioritize the interests of men. 

[ozthegweat]

Be that as it may, still only ~20% play as FemShep.

Also, using "the genre was invented by a woman, so Shep should be played by a woman" as an argument is just as sexist. You also wouldn't accept "the main character in every book has to be male because Gutenberg invented printing" as an argument. Gender issues are important, the more important it is to choose your arguments carefully.

It's sad, but it seems to me that only those already in a powerful position can "get away" with using a female lead and still be successful (The Last of Us for example, and one more reason why I didn't like GTA V that much, the third protagonist could have easily been a woman). And, thruth be told, an ME movie will not be a big blockbuster à la Avengers. So it's risk aversity. But also a chicken-and-egg problem of course.

[Drone223]

^tbh regardless if Shepard in the movie is male or female I wouldn't expect a faithful adaptation of him/her, there is no way the movie will do Shepard any justice. I wouldn't be surprised if this movie is nothing more than another cash grab by Hollywood and I think a good number of fans prefer that Shepard not be in the film at all.

[Remix-General Aetius]

the only way it would be remotely acceptable if we all made our OWN ME movies with ourselves playing Shepard lol. I'd definitely keep Liz Sroka as Tali

 

 

and I'd definitely have Dennis Trillo as Kaidan hihihihi. I'd also veto the "no male on male romance" thing they removed from ME1.

 

 

MY Kaidan hihihi.

[satunnainen]

Just hire Guy Pierce, I am sure he can do both male and femshep...

[Fetunche]

Male Shep will probably Channing Tatum or someone similar, femshep would probably be Jennifer Lawrence.

[Vortex13]

Just make it all CGI.

 

^ This.

 

I would like to see a live action adaptation of the series, but I really don't want the entire film to be nothing but actors in front of green screens the entire time. I really detest the over reliance on GCI in modern live-action cinema because it makes the whole film feel sterilized, and artificial.

 

There is no fear for Obi Won fighting General Greavious, because he isn't really there; there is no weight behind the attacks or the deflections, is just the actor flailing a plastic sword in front of Green Screen. The new TMNT movie doesn't look to have the same impact and immersion factor as the older films did. When it was stuntmen in rubber suits you could get into the action because you knew they were a real, physical person fighting the Foot Clan. The wolf G'Mork of the Never Ending Story was far more terrifying as an animatronic puppet then he would have been as a CGI monster. Yoda is far more convincing as a puppet then he is as a GCI Mario jumping around with his little lightsaber.

 

Give me a live action Mass Effect that uses animatronics and people in suits over a GCI Garrus, Wrex, Legion, Mordin, etc. If not then just have the entire thing as a CGI film.

[satunnainen]

^ This.

 

I would like to see a live action adaptation of the series, but I really don't want the entire film to be nothing but actors in front of green screens the entire time. I really detest the over reliance on GCI in modern live-action cinema because it makes the whole film feel sterilized, and artificial.

 

There is no fear for Obi Won fighting General Greavious, because he isn't really there; there is no weight behind the attacks or the deflections, is just the actor flailing a plastic sword in front of Green Screen. The new TMNT movie doesn't look to have the same impact and immersion factor as the older films did. When it was stuntmen in rubber suits you could get into the action because you knew they were a real, physical person fighting the Foot Clan. The wolf G'Mork of the Never Ending Story was far more terrifying as an animatronic puppet then he would have been as a CGI monster. Yoda is far more convincing as a puppet then he is as a GCI Mario jumping around with his little lightsaber.

 

Give me a live action Mass Effect that uses animatronics and people in suits over a GCI Garrus, Wrex, Legion, Mordin, etc. If not then just have the entire thing as a CGI film.

In lotr films Gollum was cgi too, but animated on top of the actor doing the moves in a motion capture suit. In that case, in my opinion, it worked great. On the other hand, it might be that Peter Jackson is a lot better at directing actors than George Lucas was/is. 

[Sion1138]

Has anyone been earmarked as Shepard in the movie? I have read that Shepard is going to be a man in the movie so I thought I would nominate Eric Banner. Eric’s portrayal of “Hoot” is how I would see Shepard only with the accent toned down.

 

Isn't it Eric Bana? 

 

And yes, I'd approve of him. It's always good to have a lead who is relatable.

[fhs33721]

^ This.

 

I would like to see a live action adaptation of the series, but I really don't want the entire film to be nothing but actors in front of green screens the entire time. I really detest the over reliance on GCI in modern live-action cinema because it makes the whole film feel sterilized, and artificial.

 

There is no fear for Obi Won fighting General Greavious, because he isn't really there; there is no weight behind the attacks or the deflections, is just the actor flailing a plastic sword in front of Green Screen. The new TMNT movie doesn't look to have the same impact and immersion factor as the older films did. When it was stuntmen in rubber suits you could get into the action because you knew they were a real, physical person fighting the Foot Clan. The wolf G'Mork of the Never Ending Story was far more terrifying as an animatronic puppet then he would have been as a CGI monster. Yoda is far more convincing as a puppet then he is as a GCI Mario jumping around with his little lightsaber.

 

Give me a live action Mass Effect that uses animatronics and people in suits over a GCI Garrus, Wrex, Legion, Mordin, etc. If not then just have the entire thing as a CGI film.

I still do not understand why CGI should be automatically worse than actual animatrionics or something. Personally I find it completely irrelevant if Designers spend hours of 3D moddeling to get beautifully designed creatures and backgrounds or build actual puppents. Als long as it's not crappy CGI that looks awful it doesn't really matter. Why should there be be any more fear for Luke facing Vader in the original than for Obi Wan facing Grievous.

If you think about it Luke and Vader are just actors flailing plastic swords in front of studio props.

There are still stuntman, that do the action, they just do it in front of a greenscreen now. The Wolf of GMork was nice ineed, but I think that the wolf from the Red Riding hood movie in 2011 was very threatening as well. Yoda was indeed more believeable in the original trilogy, but thats mostly just because Lucas went overboard with him jumping around like a dwarf on drugs not because he was CGI.

 

Back on topic... Äh I don't know... Arnold Schwarzenegger as Shepard. Just cause .

[Vortex13]

I still do not understand why CGI should be automatically worse than actual animatrionics or something. Personally I find it completely irrelevant if Designers spend hours of 3D moddeling to get beautifully designed creatures and backgrounds or build actual puppents. Als long as it's not crappy CGI that looks awful it doesn't really matter. Why should there be be any more fear for Luke facing Vader in the original than for Obi Wan facing Grievous.

If you think about it Luke and Vader are just actors flailing plastic swords in front of studio props.

There are still stuntman, that do the action, they just do it in front of a greenscreen now. The Wolf of GMork was nice ineed, but I think that the wolf from the Red Riding hood movie in 2011 was very threatening as well. Yoda was indeed more believeable in the original trilogy, but thats mostly just because Lucas went overboard with him jumping around like a dwarf on drugs not because he was CGI.

 

 

The use of something that is actually there with the actor/actress is that they have something to react to. Luke fighting Vader was more intense then Obi Wan facing Grievious because Vader was there with Luke, throwing him around and pushing aside his attacks. Both fight scenes are choreographed, but the fact that Luke and Vader had something physical to work with, meant that their conveyance of characters struggling against one another was more real.

 

All Obi Wan could do was stand in front of a green screen and pretend like his attacks were hitting an enemy, pretend that a nonexistent foe was threatening him, and placing strain on his endurance as a fighter. It is a lot easier; and more believable; for an actor/actress to act when they actually have something they can see, hear, feel as opposed to pretending like they can see, hear, or feel something. The problem with GCI characters interacting with live actors/actress is, no matter how well done the CGI is, it's still not real, it doesn't exist. An actor might give a convincing approximation of interacting with the GCI "cartoons" on screen, but it will never match the interaction of an actual person in a suit or animatronic puppet with the actor in question.

 

Pilot, the crab-like alien from Farscape vs. the Transformers of the Michael Bay movies. One is able to actually move and interact with the set and the actors, allowing for greater immersion and improvisation, and the other is an elaborate cartoon, never able to deviate from the script and never able to actually interact with the actors.

 

I may sound like a bitter old man: "Get off my lawn with your flashy CGI!"   But I would take rubber suits and hydraulic operated puppets over computer generated effects any day. 

 

P.S. I have no issue with using CGI in backgrounds or to create space battles; like the ones from the new-ish Battlestar Galactica; but when it comes to a 'personal' level CGI doesn't work IMO.

[fhs33721]

The use of something that is actually there with the actor/actress is that they have something to react to. Luke fighting Vader was more intense then Obi Wan facing Grievious because Vader was there with Luke, throwing him around and pushing aside his attacks. Both fight scenes are choreographed, but the fact that Luke and Vader had something physical to work with, meant that their conveyance of characters struggling against one another was more real.

 

All Obi Wan could do was stand in front of a green screen and pretend like his attacks were hitting an enemy, pretend that a nonexistent foe was threatening him, and placing strain on his endurance as a fighter. It is a lot easier; and more believable; for an actor/actress to act when they actually have something they can see, hear, feel as opposed to pretending like they can see, hear, or feel something. The problem with GCI characters interacting with live actors/actress is, no matter how well done the CGI is, it's still not real, it doesn't exist. An actor might give a convincing approximation of interacting with the GCI "cartoons" on screen, but it will never match the interaction of an actual person in a suit or animatronic puppet with the actor in question.

 

Pilot, the crab-like alien from Farscape vs. the Transformers of the Michael Bay movies. One is able to actually move and interact with the set and the actors, allowing for greater immersion and improvisation, and the other is an elaborate cartoon, never able to deviate from the script and never able to actually interact with the actors.

 

I may sound like a bitter old man: "Get off my lawn with your flashy CGI!"   But I would take rubber suits and hydraulic operated puppets over computer generated effects any day. 

 

P.S. I have no issue with using CGI in backgrounds or to create space battles; like the ones from the new-ish Battlestar Galactica; but when it comes to a 'personal' level CGI doesn't work IMO.

There is an actual guy in a blue bodysuit standing there with Obi wan during the filming. They just replace him with the Grievous model afterwards.

An transformers is awful for a lot of other reasons. Namely extremely poor acting, subpar "storylines" if you wan't to call it that and the fact that there are 21 explosions. in a 1 minute trailer alone .

[Vortex13]

There is an actual guy in a blue bodysuit standing there with Obi wan during the filming. They just replace him with the Grievous model afterwards.

An transformers is awful for a lot of other reasons. Namely extremely poor acting, subpar "storylines" if you wan't to call it that and the fact that there are 21 explosions. in a 1 minute trailer alone .

 

Yeah a stand-in does help, but Grevious had four arms Obi Wan is only 'fighting' a person with two, which in turn makes the whole fight scene look fake, since you only had the actor accounting for two lightsabers. Only at very specific points; points that are obviously forced to match up with the actor's swings; does the other two arms come into play.

 

I mean why doesn't Grevious just stab Obi Wan in the back while he's busy with his other two arms?

 

The answer is because the other two arms don't exist, and because the actor isn't aware of the extra pair of limbs he's is supposed to be fighting, they just hang there being useless throughout the entire fight sequence.

 

 

As for Transformers, well yeah you have a point; the movies do suck; but even looking at something better (can't think of anything at the moment), you can clearly see how the CGI characters never actually interact with the physical environment. 

[fhs33721]

Yeah a stand-in does help, but Grevious had four arms Obi Wan is only 'fighting' a person with two, which in turn makes the whole fight scene look fake, since you only had the actor accounting for two lightsabers. Only at very specific points; points that are obviously forced to match up with the actor's swings; does the other two arms come into play.

 

I mean why doesn't Grevious just stab Obi Wan in the back while he's busy with his other two arms?

 

The answer is because the other two arms don't exist, and because the actor isn't aware of the extra pair of limbs he's is supposed to be fighting, they just hang there being useless throughout the entire fight sequence.

 

 

As for Transformers, well yeah you have a point; the movies do suck; but even looking at something better (can't think of anything at the moment), you can clearly see how the CGI characters never actually interact with the physical environment. 

Yes two of his arms are always uselessly spinning around over obi wans head.  

I never said that that fight was very good. I just wanted to point out that Obi wan wasn't standing there completely alone as you suggested.

The problems you bring up come from the fact that they wanted to up the coolness by having a guy with four lightsabers.

 

As someone else already brought up gollum was done extremely well. Personally I never notice that CGI characters do not interact with the real envrioment, mostly due to the fact that the real and the digital envrionment blend more and more thoghether. I guess it is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. By already expecting the CGI characters to look fake and detached you notice it far more than other people.

So let's just agree that we have differing opinions and move back to topic:

 

Yes the mass effect movie. I predict (if it ever gets produced) it will be one of those mildly entertaining blockbuster-movies which you forget 3 days after you saw them in cinema. Excpet the hardcore mass effect fans. They will rant about it nonstop until the next installment of the franchise comes out.

[ozthegweat]

I'd like to see Christopher Walken as Shepard.

[Kelwing]

I'd like to see Christopher Walken as Shepard.

No..no...no..no....hell no.

[ozthegweat]

No..no...no..no....hell no.

That... was a joke. </EDI>

[NM_Che56]

Nov. 4, 2016...