121 réponses à ce sujet

[FKA_Servo]

Well to be specific the problem with video games movies is often that they are either very silly and goofy or watered down and just a generic epic Hollywood movie.

 

There's never really been one that maintained the video game feel while also being a cinematic movie.

 

I really don't think it can be done. The mediums are too different and are (let's face it) capable of distinctly disparate heights. The collaborative nature of storytelling in a videogame goes a long ass way in smoothing over things that just flat out wouldn't work in any other narrative medium.

[Seraphim24]

I really don't think it can be done. The mediums are too different and are (let's face it) capable of distinctly disparate heights. The collaborative nature of storytelling in a videogame goes a long ass way in smoothing over things that just flat out wouldn't work in any other narrative medium.

 

Well I was going to add that, "And that's why ultimate games like ME have been closer to capturing that than anything" because it's not impossible things are already close to it for various reasons. I don't think they've done the ultimate thing and gotten all the way there but they have certainly moved in that direction.

 

Judging by how much people just play games for characters and story I'd actually go so far as to say it's a logical way to go... if you aren't playing up the aesthetic qualities of your video game I'd say you are pretty DOA.

 

I don't even disagree that the new AC looks like generic Hollywood movie #439, but there's nothing precluding it in theory.

[Killroy]

And do you really think a movie based on a story with, let's face it, a good amount of variability, is gonna please even a minority of the fans? I don't want to see John Shepard, soldier/renegade douchebag's story writ large. I want Sarah Shepard, vanguard and paragon. What about that crucial love story? The Talimancers will call in an airstrike.

This is foolish. Why would a studio sink potentially $100,000,000+ into a video game movie just for the people who played the game? That defeats the entire purpose of making the movie and would be a disastrous business model. The best thing a movie studio could do would be to get the essence and tone of the story right and ignore all the fanboys, not cater to as many of them as possible. 

[Monk]

My two decades of fandom (although that fandom is semi-retired until we get a proper new one) all but guarantee I'll see it at some point, same as Dragon Ball Evolution. I will feel bad about it, however.

 

 

Ugh. See, this is how it starts.

 

Though I guess he'd be the obvious choice, if wanted my hypothesis to be borne out to the letter.

 

Sometimes it takes a fellow geek to get it right, plus he has made video games of his own work. While not highly successful, the games are pretty fun for a fan. Note, this is if Whedon had to work with Shepard.

 

If Shepard wasn't an option, i'd probably be happy with someone like Michael Bay since ME is chock-full of explosions.

 

Peter Jackson would be good from a lore standpoint, though i'd probably read the book too since it'd likely have all the non-movie bits as well.

 

For something that's more moving and dramatic, i'd lean towards Shyamalan, having loved his work on Unbreakable which, by all accounts, is a comic book movie.

 

 

Grow a quad!

 

Why have a quad when a pair works just fine?

 

Seriously though, there are movies where it's better to rage silently, less you light the whole theater on fire.

[FKA_Servo]

This is foolish. Why would a studio sink potentially $100,000,000+ into a video game movie just for the people who played the game? That defeats the entire purpose of making the movie and would be a disastrous business model. The best thing a movie studio could do would be to get the essence and tone of the story right and ignore all the fanboys, not cater to as many of them as possible.

Well, that poster was speaking as a fan. He's not the only fan, however.

The admittedly unspoken implication there was that it's a terrible idea. It's all a terrible idea.

[FKA_Servo]

Sometimes it takes a fellow geek to get it right, plus he has made video games of his own work. While not highly successful, the games are pretty fun for a fan. Note, this is if Whedon had to work with Shepard.

If Shepard wasn't an option, i'd probably be happy with someone like Michael Bay since ME is chock-full of explosions.

Peter Jackson would be good from a lore standpoint, though i'd probably read the book too since it'd likely have all the non-movie bits as well.

For something that's more moving and dramatic, i'd lean towards Shyamalan, having loved his work on Unbreakable which, by all accounts, is a comic book movie.

...yikes. All I can say is agree to disagree. And that Unbreakable is one of only three films I've ever walked out of.

I maintain the best approach is not to make a Mass Effect film at all, ever.

[Killroy]

The admittedly unspoken implication there was that it's a terrible idea. It's all a terrible idea.

 

There's nothing inherently stupid about adapting a video game into a movie. People have just gotten it into their heads that it will always be stupid because video game movies have historically been pretty terrible. But that comes down to talent and execution. 

[Iakus]

Sometimes it takes a fellow geek to get it right, plus he has made video games of his own work. While not highly successful, the games are pretty fun for a fan. Note, this is if Whedon had to work with Shepard.

 

If Shepard wasn't an option, i'd probably be happy with someone like Michael Bay since ME is chock-full of explosions.

 

Peter Jackson would be good from a lore standpoint, though i'd probably read the book too since it'd likely have all the non-movie bits as well.

 

For something that's more moving and dramatic, i'd lean towards Shyamalan, having loved his work on Unbreakable which, by all accounts, is a comic book movie.

 

 

And if we were going for a "canon" Shepard film, Zack Snyder.

 

"Tell me, Shepard...do you bleed?"

[FKA_Servo]

There's nothing inherently stupid about adapting a video game into a movie. People have just gotten it into their heads that it will always be stupid because video game movies have historically been pretty terrible. But that comes down to talent and execution.

When it involves the sort of money you mentioned in your last post, they're inevitably going to play it safe with the talent and the execution. It'll be a license to print money, maybe, but it'll probably be the same as every other massive blockbuster made these days.

[Atomkick]

And if we were going for a "canon" Shepard film, Zack Snyder.

 

"Tell me, Shepard...do you bleed?"

 

"Please, don't kill me. My mother's name is Martha."

 

[GeneralXIV]

I... dont understand how Mass Effect 2 could work as a film though There were so many missions x

[Killroy]

When it involves the sort of money you mentioned in your last post, they're inevitably going to play it safe with the talent and the execution. It'll be a license to print money, maybe, but it'll probably be the same as every other massive blockbuster made these days.

 

I disagree. That also comes down to talent and execution. Look at what Marvel Studios is doing. They gave an unknown, low-budget director a big budget and free reign creatively and ended up with Guardians of the Galaxy. They gave an eclectic, mid-budget, darkly comedic director a relatively small budget and free reign creatively and ended up with Iron Man and the foundation of an entire cinematic universe, worth billions of dollars. 

 

It all comes down to finding the right talents to execute things properly. If you put a hack like Paul W.S. Anderson in charge, you'll get bad results. If you put someone with unquestionable talent like Jon Favreau in charge, you'll get good results. 

[Andrew Lucas]

"where's the romance?"

Lol, BSN, never change.

[Killroy]

I... dont understand how Mass Effect 2 could work as a film though There were so many missions x

 

Almost all of the missions are largely pointless. They're mostly just recruitment and loyalty missions, which aren't integral to the plot. 

All they would have to do is get rid of half of the ME2 characters, ditch the recruitment and loyalty nonsense, and focus on the 3 or 4 plot-central missions. ME2 would be the easiest game in the trilogy to adapt to a movie.

[Guanxii]

"Hollywood hack"

 

"Trend following cash grab"

 

These two things are an inevitability. If Star Wars Ep 9 can't land a decent director, any Mass Effect film sure as hell won't, either.

 

And do you really think a movie based on a story with, let's face it, a good amount of variability, is gonna please even a minority of the fans? I don't want to see John Shepard, soldier/renegade douchebag's story writ large. I want Sarah Shepard, vanguard and paragon. What about that crucial love story? The Talimancers will call in an airstrike.

 

 

If anyone's likely to do Mass Effect justice, it's Bioware (I know how funny that sounds), in their chosen medium. Any film adaptation will inevitably trash the source material in favor of making the film palatable to film audiences, who are, incredibly, more numerous, more protitable, and more fickle than gamers. If it achieves even a modicum of success, that success will in turn inform the direction of future games, just as the earth shattering success of Disney's Marvel schlock has negatively informed the creative direction of the comics that inspired them.

 

Honestly, the absolute best case for a Mass Effect film is it gets assigned a "good" director like the aforementioned Whedon (ugh) and ends up as predictable, safe, and forgettable as every last one of these goddamn Marvel films.

 

I want to say nobody wants that to happen, but I know I'm wrong.

 

We all have our own unique interpretations of character's personalities and relationships and what the story could be including the would be writers and producers. I have no problem if the choices they go for are wildly different to my own so long as the choices they make work.

 

If I might share for a minute some brief thoughts on my interpretation of the me1 characters/relationships - For one thing Shepard's relationship with Liara never sat right with me. It feels creepy and exploitative. I would cast her as an young naïve impressionable teenager who Shepard feels responsible for in a fatherly way having killed her mother. Tali the same - especially after losing her father. Their relationship should be more like two rivals vying for your attention who slowly become like adopted sisters. 

 

Shepard for me has always been a by the book paragon career soldier so Ashley has always felt like a more natural fit as Shepard's love interest for me. But that's not to say there isn't friction and chemistry as their world views collide. Their relationship is the most organic; Ashley slowly begins to embrace Shepard's world view and adopts his values as her own during the course of their adventures. I would merge Ashley and Femshep into a new and improved Ashley.

 

Garrus and Wrex are the best bro pairing in history and would sell so much merch it's not even funny. It should be Kaidan's decision to sacrifice himself - That doesn't stop Shepard from feeling responsible though.

 

BioWare face-planted and went full on George Lucas by the end. ME2 and ME3 are not without great moments but neither lived up to the original and both could be much better by reworking the material. If BioWare don't agree then I don't trust them with this source material anymore. They were making it up as they went along that much is clear. It's never going to be high cinema but the potential of the source material is amazing... I don't care for marvel movies but anybody looking to replicate their model could do much worse than the Mass Effect franchise for it's extended universe and lore, characterisation, unique species, locations and technology. If they became a big dumb summer action movie franchise which millions of people enjoyed I wouldn't begrudge anybody any of that. I'd rather that than see the potential of this material wasted completely.

[FKA_Servo]

I disagree. That also comes down to talent and execution. Look at what Marvel Studios is doing. They gave an unknown, low-budget director a big budget and free reign creatively and ended up with Guardians of the Galaxy. They gave an eclectic, mid-budget, darkly comedic director a relatively small budget and free reign creatively and ended up with Iron Man and the foundation of an entire cinematic universe, worth billions of dollars. 

 

It all comes down to finding the right talents to execute things properly. If you put a hack like Paul W.S. Anderson in charge, you'll get bad results. If you put someone with unquestionable talent like Jon Favreau in charge, you'll get good results. 

 

I'm not too enamored with what Marvel Studios is doing (I'm pretty sure I trash talked them on this very page). I think it's mostly crap.

 

I haven't seen all the Marvel films, but the ones I have seen, particularly the recent ones like Guardians of the Galaxy, embody safe, pat, and calculated. Guardians of the Galaxy might have been made by an unknown director, but it watches like it was written in a shareholder's meeting by a damn focus group. That's how each one from the last few years has felt. That's how Force Awakens felt too, for that matter.

 

I'll cop to not remembering the first Iron Man film that well (I'll also cop to liking Jon Favreau a lot). I didn't hate it. But at this point, I don't think the best director could even stand up to the overarching Marvel Film Studio's "vision." Didn't the director of Iron Man 3 just come out that they wouldn't let him write the villain he wanted to because it wouldn't sell enough toys? Yeah.

[Killroy]

I'm not too enamored with what Marvel Studios is doing (I'm pretty sure I trash talked them on this very page). I think it's mostly crap.

 

I haven't seen all the Marvel films, but the ones I have seen, particularly the recent ones like Guardians of the Galaxy, embody safe, pat, and calculated. Guardians of the Galaxy might have been made by an unknown director, but it watches like it was written in a shareholder's meeting by a damn focus group. That's how each one from the last few years has felt. That's how Force Unleashed felt too, for that matter.

 

I'll cop to not remembering the first Iron Man film that well (I'll also cop to liking Jon Favreau a lot). I didn't hate it. But at this point, I don't think the best director could even stand up to the overarching Marvel Film Studio's "vision." Didn't the director of Iron Man 3 just come out that they wouldn't let him write the villain he wanted to because it wouldn't sell enough toys? Yeah.

 

They didn't even make toys of the villain from Iron Man 3 so I'm pretty sure you heard wrong. And you're also in a very small minority, not liking the Marvel movies. 

[Squish]

I wouldn't watch it D;

[FKA_Servo]

They didn't even make toys of the villain from Iron Man 3 so I'm pretty sure you heard wrong. And you're also in a very small minority, not liking the Marvel movies. 

 

http://variety.com/2...ack-1201775937/

 

And I'm OK with being a contrarian hipster about this particular thing. I'm mostly just salty that it's influence will inevitably ruin Star Wars too, now that they're going to be drowning us in new, irrelevant stories every 15 months.

[Onewomanarmy]

I think it can be done if done right. It all depends on who makes the movie. Silent Hill was perfect imo and was made almost exactly like the games, downright to the details. Sure none fans didn't really like the movie since they didn't get it but it's about the fans first and foremost since they're the once who have and are buying the games. Resident Evil on the other hand was yuk, so badly made cause it had basically nothing to do with the games. They invented characters and then made up stories and exaggerated etc. It was just downright bad. It all depends on who makes the movie.

[Guanxii]

How is Zack Snyder not box office cancer yet?

[FKA_Servo]

How is Zack Snyder not box office cancer yet?

 

Because people fall over themselves to throw money at bad movies.

[Killroy]

http://variety.com/2...ack-1201775937/

I'm dubious of that entire article. They call Guy Pearce "Guy Pearson" and Shane Black said on the DVD commentary that the villain was changed from female to male because they didn't want the villain's petty motivations(being stood up by Tony Stark) and extreme vanity to come across as sexist.
 

And I'm OK with being a contrarian hipster about this particular thing. I'm mostly just salty that it's influence will inevitably ruin Star Wars too, now that they're going to be drowning us in new, irrelevant stories every 15 months.

Star Wars was ruined when Lucas made Return of the Jedi. That movie sucks and is only remembered fondly because it's "classic" Star Wars. An army of Rambo teddy bears, a neutered Han Solo, and a recycled plot are all objectively bad things but everyone keeps their nostalgia goggles firmly affixed to their heads when talking about Star Wars.

[Killroy]

How is Zack Snyder not box office cancer yet?

He just has a lot of friends. After Suckerpunch he should have been relegated to low-budget schlock, like Paul W.S. Anderson. But in Hollywood you fail up if you know the right people. The people responsible for box office flops or just duds in general are almost never actually held accountable. Instead they'll blame the writer, whose script was completely changed by the time it hit the screen, or the star, who probably signed on because the initial script or creative team was much stronger than what actually went into production.

[Jedi Comedian]

Star Wars was ruined when Lucas made Return of the Jedi. That movie sucks and is only remembered fondly because it's "classic" Star Wars. An army of Rambo teddy bears, a neutered Han Solo, and a recycled plot are all objectively bad things but everyone keeps their nostalgia goggles firmly affixed to their heads when talking about Star Wars.

Agree with that, ROTJ should've been way better.