The only way I see an AC movie NOT FAILING is by having THE WHOLE ORIGINAL CAST in it. It should have Francisco Randez as Desmond BUT with a Nolan North voice-over,etc.
Hollywood: Assassin's Creed Movie Is Doomed
- Thread starter Earnest Cavalli
- Start date
Well, since the response to his books is clearly negative, I'll be a bit more crass about it. They WERE awful. Ezio was not Ezio, he was Generic Action Hero...and all the bad guys kinda lined up to be beaten. No plot, no coherence, just Ezio and his sword.Random berk said:
And I thought videogames were supposed to be simplistic.
Guys, you know this doesn't (necessarily) mean Ubisoft will make it themselves... They "just" have creative control, so they'll be an overbearing (but hopefully benevolent) producer. It can mean a lot of things.
But this is excellent news either way. At the very worst, they'll make a bad movie, but one that'll look like AssCreed and has tons of similarities to the game - which would be unlike every other game-movie. Prince of Persia barely had any parkour in it. Street Fighter is probably the runner-up in the likeness-contest. We have it that bad.
The general movie-going populace (which we all know is dumb as hay) might be confused by the whole Animus-VR business, so it might flop on that account. ("Why does that dude murder people at a Renaissance Fair!?")
Good news, it doesn't require the doubly-dreaded R-rating. Murder is everyone's #1 activity, but the games are a fairly tame precedent.
So, really, this only means that the story is the biggest weak-point, unless all of Ubisoft has a collective brainfart about everything else.
On the other hand, since when do people care about story? Avatar made money, and people clearly didn't watch it for the story...
But this is excellent news either way. At the very worst, they'll make a bad movie, but one that'll look like AssCreed and has tons of similarities to the game - which would be unlike every other game-movie. Prince of Persia barely had any parkour in it. Street Fighter is probably the runner-up in the likeness-contest. We have it that bad.
The general movie-going populace (which we all know is dumb as hay) might be confused by the whole Animus-VR business, so it might flop on that account. ("Why does that dude murder people at a Renaissance Fair!?")
Good news, it doesn't require the doubly-dreaded R-rating. Murder is everyone's #1 activity, but the games are a fairly tame precedent.
So, really, this only means that the story is the biggest weak-point, unless all of Ubisoft has a collective brainfart about everything else.
On the other hand, since when do people care about story? Avatar made money, and people clearly didn't watch it for the story...
Not to be callous, but if this movie doesn't get made, I'll be about as disappointed as I would be if I was told that the Tuesdays with Morrie graphic novel wasn't going to be made.
Sorry, but just because something is great doesn't mean it will be great in every form. Likewise, I don't think that just because I like two things, like say, chocolate and mayonnaise, I should mix them together. I like Movies, and I love assassin's creed, but that doesn't mean I think this movie is a good idea at all.
What was great about the big, terrific setpieces and environments in AC wasn't just that they were there, but it was the sense of accomplishment that came with, for example, defeating a borgia captain, driving away his men, burning down the structure and climbing to the top of the tower to see the sunset over a small rural district in Rome. The fact that you drove the action and orchestrated the sequences is what makes the pretty pictures and action scenes of the game better than that of the average period epic.
Sorry, but just because something is great doesn't mean it will be great in every form. Likewise, I don't think that just because I like two things, like say, chocolate and mayonnaise, I should mix them together. I like Movies, and I love assassin's creed, but that doesn't mean I think this movie is a good idea at all.
What was great about the big, terrific setpieces and environments in AC wasn't just that they were there, but it was the sense of accomplishment that came with, for example, defeating a borgia captain, driving away his men, burning down the structure and climbing to the top of the tower to see the sunset over a small rural district in Rome. The fact that you drove the action and orchestrated the sequences is what makes the pretty pictures and action scenes of the game better than that of the average period epic.
Let this be a warning to anyone thinking that letting the creators of said franchise having total creative control is a good idea.
Granted, it's a good thing Ubisoft care about what happens to their baby, but whether they actually know what would and wouldn't make a good Assassin's Creed movie is something else.
Some sacrifices will have to be made, otherwise this film will either end up a massive botch job or won't exist at all.
This would be a good movie if done right. I really think Zach Snyder should direct it, he'd do a kick ass job.
I don't know. They made Three Musketeers and before I knew the title I thought that was like Assassin's Creed.
So I think that an Assassin's Creed movie would work, only that a movie based on the first game would be more difficult to attract a crowd as it has a slower pace than the Assassin's Creed 2 games. Plus, Ezio is a more likeable assassin; while Altair is just a badass.
So I think that an Assassin's Creed movie would work, only that a movie based on the first game would be more difficult to attract a crowd as it has a slower pace than the Assassin's Creed 2 games. Plus, Ezio is a more likeable assassin; while Altair is just a badass.
Why do most studios care? I understand that they could be wasting time and a bit of money, but isn't MOST of the cost going on Ubisoft? I mean, from the article it seems like Ubisoft went to film makers, not the otherway around. I just don't see Ubisoft not willing to front a good load of cash to ensure everything goes the way they want it.
Bha dump Assassins creed and go after something easier like Brent Weeks "Night Angel" trilogy there are assassins murder dark theme and geek factors.
But there has nowdays even been OK games to movies conversions so "assassins creed the movie" could turn out ok not great perhaps but ok...
(Sands of time were ok because it did not stink like say "Doom the movie"...)
And to keep control over your IP is good if you want to make sure it doesn't turn out disastrous, on the down side with as much control as they've got here is it gonna take really long time before this movie gets out the way ubi wants...
But there has nowdays even been OK games to movies conversions so "assassins creed the movie" could turn out ok not great perhaps but ok...
(Sands of time were ok because it did not stink like say "Doom the movie"...)
And to keep control over your IP is good if you want to make sure it doesn't turn out disastrous, on the down side with as much control as they've got here is it gonna take really long time before this movie gets out the way ubi wants...
Complete creative control to Ubisoft? No interference from Hollywood assholes?
I'm a little hard right now. Hold nothing back, Ubisoft.
I'm a little hard right now. Hold nothing back, Ubisoft.
lately Game live action has been so much better than shit coming out from hollywood lately imo... check the live action trailer for Deus Ex: HR, Skyrim, AC2.. these video's are amazing... just need a longer version of themT8B95 said:
Also: Whatever opinions Ubisoft gleaned from the internet fan base are still a secret, but at least, on some level, it looks like the company is doing its best to deliver what its fan-base actually wants, instead of just making it up as it goes along.
I tend to think this movie was dead before it even got started, whoever even considered this was pretty dumb to be honest.
It should be noted that irregardless of your personal politics the first game which laid the groundwork for this series was basically an attempt to be offensive to a lot of the western world on the war on terror. Ubisoft being a french company, france having opposed The War On Terror for reasons of personal gain given it's breaking of embargos hidden behind the "Oil For Food Program" and still being interested in that money, and also seeking appeasement over their own riots and such.
What your looking at in the final equasion is a game about an Arab largely killing off westerners, in one of the more politically touchy periods of history. The timing of this did not go unnoticed in certain circles, nor did the creators and the politics involved in where they were operating for a lot was written about it.
In general the gaming community dismissed this because for the most part it tends to have a huge left wing, peace at any price, anti-war on terror prescence, and of course dismissed the criticisms of the game's content or any political or social considerations at all. There were enough people who didn't have a problem with the message or intent, didn't believe it, or whatever else to turn it into a major franchise.
What you might think of everything I just said above, understand that this movie is one that is going to have to be sold not just to the gaming community and the way it breaks down, but to the mainstream. With the US polarized 50-50 politically (despite both sides claiming to have a clear majority) and the what movies need to do to become successful, it really seems unlikely that this is going to be a good financial risk. Whatever your politics might be, or if you see this a-politically, or whatever else, when this hits the market it's not just what you and your friends might think, a movie like this is going to need more people. Chances are even if they spend the money to do this right, even if everyone who has bought the Assasin's Creed games showed up and bought a ticket, the movie wouldn't make enough money to be considered successful. That's a lot of people, but you have to put it in the perspective of the overall cost to cover material like this without creating another CGI-tastic crapfest that would fail on it's own on the merit of being a giant turd.
Understand also that you don't have to agree with the war on terror to find this offensive. See, the actual crusades were fought largely because the followers of Islam decided to ignore the whole bit about "men of the book" and sharing the holy sites with Christians and Jews and to expel the infidel from the Holy Land. You had people spending fortunes to make long and dangerous journies from the western world to Jerusalum, and Muslims started murdering the pilgrims horribly to keep them out. They did things like leave the tortured corpses along the roads to the holy land as a lesson to the infidels. Understand that a lot of the people who died here were nobles (or the children thereof) or connected to major wealth. One of the big things abou the crusades was that as powerful as The Church was, it probably wouldn't have actually united Europe to this cause the way it did on pure faith, the fact that the temporal powers were angry over this was one of the big reasons why all the nobles, kings, and other participants were so eager to throw in with the church, spend tons of money, and go off to liberate The Holy Land. There was more than one cause to this, religious fanatacism played a major role, but it was one of those cases where it was a perfect storm of events that caused somethibng really unlikely to get started (and continue on for a long time through multiple crusades). When you consider the nautical technology of the time and how many ships were lost just getting back and forth (treasure hunters and historians still look for them) it puts some perspective into the sheer scope of the crusades which took more than The Pope deciding he wanted to go kick some butt for lulz.
The stories about atrocities committed against Muslims are pretty much accurate, this was very much a war of vengeance. When Lord so-and-so showed up with an army he didn't just come because The Pope told him to liberale The Holy Land, he did it because he was out to avenge his son/daugher/brother/messenger/whatever. Some people torture your kid to death and hang his body on the side of a road, and yeah your going to get pissed off, and when your a medieval lord this was kind of the answer to someone asking "yah, but what are you going to do about it".
The point of this very basic, and simplistic run down is that a game showing Muslims as simply being oppressed by these horrible crusaders (and in a way justifying their actions) and has a hero running around killing them off as his major enemies (even if he kills some Arabs too) is pretty much asking for it. A lot of people who are very left wing or don't know much about it might not get it, but a lot of people who do know something about it are going to look at this version which might appeal to Muslims, but is very offensive to the Western World which is incidently the core market for this game.
Don't get me wrong here though, before anyone start screaming, I am NOT saying the Crusaders were the good guys. It's one of those cases where like most historical events everyone was basically a self-serving bastard on all relevent sides, Western and Middle Eastern, especially by modern standards of morality. Not that this matters really, what matters is that if they do this movie it's going to make a lot of the key audience go "WTF", and wind up not liking it because of the rather biased portrayals involved.
That's my thoughts as well... of course I'm speaking with the assumption that the first movie would involve the first game. If they decide to start with Enzio, then you've got the whole issue of it's treatment of the Borgias/Popes and similar things to content with.
Assasin's Creed is the kind of concept that can work for a large, but fairly limited audience of people that are open minded or political pre-disposed to think the same way. I do not think it can however hold down a truely mainstream audience. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I imagine the kind of creative control Ubisoft wants as this game's creators is to prevent the kind of re-writs which would make it palatable to the mainstream audience (which would also admittedly ruin part of the point of the game and it's storylines), and that right there means that it's not likely to get approved and financed at the level it would need to be a good movie to begin with.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but those are my thoughts. Time will tell what's going to happen.
Also for the record if your thinking not many people know much about the crusades, I think you'd be wrong. Political spin matters, but a lot of people know how those wars got started, and with all the referances to the "Templars" in popular culture recently via Dan Brown and authors like that, I think you'd be surprised.
It should be noted that irregardless of your personal politics the first game which laid the groundwork for this series was basically an attempt to be offensive to a lot of the western world on the war on terror. Ubisoft being a french company, france having opposed The War On Terror for reasons of personal gain given it's breaking of embargos hidden behind the "Oil For Food Program" and still being interested in that money, and also seeking appeasement over their own riots and such.
What your looking at in the final equasion is a game about an Arab largely killing off westerners, in one of the more politically touchy periods of history. The timing of this did not go unnoticed in certain circles, nor did the creators and the politics involved in where they were operating for a lot was written about it.
In general the gaming community dismissed this because for the most part it tends to have a huge left wing, peace at any price, anti-war on terror prescence, and of course dismissed the criticisms of the game's content or any political or social considerations at all. There were enough people who didn't have a problem with the message or intent, didn't believe it, or whatever else to turn it into a major franchise.
What you might think of everything I just said above, understand that this movie is one that is going to have to be sold not just to the gaming community and the way it breaks down, but to the mainstream. With the US polarized 50-50 politically (despite both sides claiming to have a clear majority) and the what movies need to do to become successful, it really seems unlikely that this is going to be a good financial risk. Whatever your politics might be, or if you see this a-politically, or whatever else, when this hits the market it's not just what you and your friends might think, a movie like this is going to need more people. Chances are even if they spend the money to do this right, even if everyone who has bought the Assasin's Creed games showed up and bought a ticket, the movie wouldn't make enough money to be considered successful. That's a lot of people, but you have to put it in the perspective of the overall cost to cover material like this without creating another CGI-tastic crapfest that would fail on it's own on the merit of being a giant turd.
Understand also that you don't have to agree with the war on terror to find this offensive. See, the actual crusades were fought largely because the followers of Islam decided to ignore the whole bit about "men of the book" and sharing the holy sites with Christians and Jews and to expel the infidel from the Holy Land. You had people spending fortunes to make long and dangerous journies from the western world to Jerusalum, and Muslims started murdering the pilgrims horribly to keep them out. They did things like leave the tortured corpses along the roads to the holy land as a lesson to the infidels. Understand that a lot of the people who died here were nobles (or the children thereof) or connected to major wealth. One of the big things abou the crusades was that as powerful as The Church was, it probably wouldn't have actually united Europe to this cause the way it did on pure faith, the fact that the temporal powers were angry over this was one of the big reasons why all the nobles, kings, and other participants were so eager to throw in with the church, spend tons of money, and go off to liberate The Holy Land. There was more than one cause to this, religious fanatacism played a major role, but it was one of those cases where it was a perfect storm of events that caused somethibng really unlikely to get started (and continue on for a long time through multiple crusades). When you consider the nautical technology of the time and how many ships were lost just getting back and forth (treasure hunters and historians still look for them) it puts some perspective into the sheer scope of the crusades which took more than The Pope deciding he wanted to go kick some butt for lulz.
The stories about atrocities committed against Muslims are pretty much accurate, this was very much a war of vengeance. When Lord so-and-so showed up with an army he didn't just come because The Pope told him to liberale The Holy Land, he did it because he was out to avenge his son/daugher/brother/messenger/whatever. Some people torture your kid to death and hang his body on the side of a road, and yeah your going to get pissed off, and when your a medieval lord this was kind of the answer to someone asking "yah, but what are you going to do about it".
The point of this very basic, and simplistic run down is that a game showing Muslims as simply being oppressed by these horrible crusaders (and in a way justifying their actions) and has a hero running around killing them off as his major enemies (even if he kills some Arabs too) is pretty much asking for it. A lot of people who are very left wing or don't know much about it might not get it, but a lot of people who do know something about it are going to look at this version which might appeal to Muslims, but is very offensive to the Western World which is incidently the core market for this game.
Don't get me wrong here though, before anyone start screaming, I am NOT saying the Crusaders were the good guys. It's one of those cases where like most historical events everyone was basically a self-serving bastard on all relevent sides, Western and Middle Eastern, especially by modern standards of morality. Not that this matters really, what matters is that if they do this movie it's going to make a lot of the key audience go "WTF", and wind up not liking it because of the rather biased portrayals involved.
That's my thoughts as well... of course I'm speaking with the assumption that the first movie would involve the first game. If they decide to start with Enzio, then you've got the whole issue of it's treatment of the Borgias/Popes and similar things to content with.
Assasin's Creed is the kind of concept that can work for a large, but fairly limited audience of people that are open minded or political pre-disposed to think the same way. I do not think it can however hold down a truely mainstream audience. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I imagine the kind of creative control Ubisoft wants as this game's creators is to prevent the kind of re-writs which would make it palatable to the mainstream audience (which would also admittedly ruin part of the point of the game and it's storylines), and that right there means that it's not likely to get approved and financed at the level it would need to be a good movie to begin with.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but those are my thoughts. Time will tell what's going to happen.
Also for the record if your thinking not many people know much about the crusades, I think you'd be wrong. Political spin matters, but a lot of people know how those wars got started, and with all the referances to the "Templars" in popular culture recently via Dan Brown and authors like that, I think you'd be surprised.
Good for you Ubisoft!
Creative control just means it will be an iteration that closely resembles the games, and that's what people who like Assassin's Creed want!
Screw those HollyWood cunts anyway, they just pour explosions and CGI into it.
Oh and don't just bring in a lead actor who is well known, just because he is well known.
Creative control just means it will be an iteration that closely resembles the games, and that's what people who like Assassin's Creed want!
Screw those HollyWood cunts anyway, they just pour explosions and CGI into it.
Oh and don't just bring in a lead actor who is well known, just because he is well known.