Assassin's Creed - Part 1

[jmc]

Not an issue for me but I can't help but wonder if this is the reason why only a third of the movie will be set in Spain.

 

[TheVileOne]

It just seems like such a silly, arbitrary choice. Then again, over half the movie not even being set in period Spain sort of defeats the purpose of the movie anyway.

To me this is why you can't translate games into movies. The games don't work as movies. And they take away the cool immersion players get in these stories. The movies fail to recreate that.

The whole point of playing the games is experiencing the adventure of being an Assassin in a different time period and having cool abilities and interacting with important historical figures or being a part of major historical events. Ubisoft barely even pays any attention to the present day storyline at this point.

So they finally get a movie done and they say, "You know what? I think the story in the present is more important. So let's keep most of the action there." Excuse me?

Not to mention they chose a goofy design for the Animus, which looks like badly designed CG.

This is why big budget adaptations of video game movies are always going to fail. The producers and filmmakers don't understand what's great and what works about these games, and they can't translate what's great about the game and boil it into a two hour movie.

 

[Reek]

.... I'd make the best video game adaptation ever of Mass Effect

 

[TheVileOne]

How though? How do you boil down the experience of Mass Effect and turn it all into one movie that can satisfy millions of moviegoers, not to mention people who have never played the game?

Not to mention, a big part of Mass Effect is that it gave players the choice for how to play. Players could choose to go renegade or go a more thoughtful route. They could choose if they wanted to play as a male or a female. OR they could even choose the color or ethnicity of their character. The game had branching pathways and dialogue. So the direction of the narrative is never fixed. It's determined by the choice of the player. How do you pick the right way for the movie without upsetting a lot of gamers considering how BioWare simply empowered them to play the way they wanted to?

 

[jmc]

It just seems like such a silly, arbitrary choice. Then again, over half the movie not even being set in period Spain sort of defeats the purpose of the movie anyway.

To me this is why you can't translate games into movies. The games don't work as movies. And they take away the cool immersion players get in these stories. The movies fail to recreate that.

The whole point of playing the games is experiencing the adventure of being an Assassin in a different time period and having cool abilities and interacting with important historical figures or being a part of major historical events. Ubisoft barely even pays any attention to the present day storyline at this point.

So they finally get a movie done and they say, "You know what? I think the story in the present is more important. So let's keep most of the action there." Excuse me?

Not to mention they chose a goofy design for the Animus, which looks like badly designed CG.

This is why big budget adaptations of video game movies are always going to fail. The producers and filmmakers don't understand what's great and what works about these games, and they can't translate what's great about the game and boil it into a two hour movie.

100% agree.

 

[Reek]

How though? How do you boil down the experience of Mass Effect and turn it all into one movie that can satisfy millions of moviegoers, not to mention people who have never played the game?

Not to mention, a big part of Mass Effect is that it gave players the choice for how to play. Players could choose to go renegade or go a more thoughtful route. They could choose if they wanted to play as a male or a female. OR they could even choose the color or ethnicity of their character. The game had branching pathways and dialogue. So the direction of the narrative is never fixed. It's determined by the choice of the player. How do you pick the right way for the movie without upsetting a lot of gamers considering how BioWare simply empowered them to play the way they wanted to?

Well... first of all, it would be a porno.

No I'm kidding, i couldn't make a ****ing movie. and if anyone tried to make a ME movie, it would have to be a full on series... star wars sized.

I do think it would work as a show though... like on hbo or starz... just the budget would be ridiculous.

the intended story is meant to be played as paragon though... but all those choices didnt end up meaning a goddamn thing in the end so the problem of choice doesnt exist anymore

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah it would basically need Game of Thrones production values.

 

[Reek]

i would absolutely piss myself with a live action Normandy set...

anyhow with AC... I didnt give a **** about the modern day stuff... any time it interfered with the past stuff i was annoyed... the one thing i liked about the modern day stuff was in AC3 where you got to scale the building.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

The beggars from the first game need to make an appearance.

"Could you please spare me some coins".

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Assassin's Creed movie image shows Fassbender's hooded hero in action:

http://www.gamesradar.com/exclusive-assassins-creed-movie-image-shows-fassbenders-hooded-hero-in-action/

 

[Abudefduf]

Oh, so English-speaking people are too unrealistic for a movie set in 15th century Spain, but modern cars are somehow completely ok?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Do you not see a camera mounted on that car. They are clearly filming. Neither the car or the camera would be visible in the film.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

Oh, so English-speaking people are too unrealistic for a movie set in 15th century Spain, but modern cars are somehow completely ok?

 

[LoganGambit87]

Oh, so English-speaking people are too unrealistic for a movie set in 15th century Spain, but modern cars are somehow completely ok?

 

[BestGirl]

The first first-person movie should've been a video game adaptation, not Hardcore Harry (or whatever it was called).

 

[LoganGambit87]

The first first-person movie should've been a video game adaptation, not Hardcore Harry (or whatever it was called).

not the whole movie but did'nt doom do it first

 

[Abudefduf]

Do you not see a camera mounted on that car. They are clearly filming. Neither the car or the camera would be visible in the film.

Poe's Law strikes again.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

I'm starting to lose faith in this film.

 

[Guts]

The first first-person movie should've been a video game adaptation, not Hardcore Harry (or whatever it was called).

Hardcore Henry was basically a good video game movie that wasn't based on a specific video game.

 

[MadVillainy]

you can definitely make a good VGM. I'm not saying it's easy but sometimes it's just simple stupid decisions that could've been avoided.
Who's genius idea was it to set less than 50% of Assassin's Creed time in the past? Why set a majority of it out of the Animus? That's not how the game worked right?
Why not just set it in a time/place where English could be spoken without it being non-authentic or why not just say f*** it and have people speak English IF that is a reason why there's so little Animus action. I mean Gladiator is a dope movie and everyone speaks English, and I may be in the minority but I enjoyed the Troy DC and everyone spoke English. The only thing about doing that is youre gonna get some snark, but if the movie is good everyone would shut up

For reference, what I'm really curious about is how much time was spent in The Matrix in the first movie? I think that's a perfect example of how to split the time between a real world and a fantasy world.

Not every game with work. For example, I don't see the appeal on making a Mass Effect game. Isn't so much of the fun of Mass Effect making choices? Halo is another one that would be difficult.

But we havent seen the quality of AC yet. So it's still up in the air.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

you can definitely make a good VGM. I'm not saying it's easy but sometimes it's just simple stupid decisions that could've been avoided.
Who's genius idea was it to set less than 50% of Assassin's Creed time in the past? Why set a majority of it out of the Animus? That's not how the game worked right?

For reference, what I'm really curious about is how much time was spent in The Matrix in the first movie? I think that's a perfect example of how to split the time between a real world and a fantasy world.

But we havent seen the quality of this yet. So it's still up in the air.

To answer your question about the Matrix. About the same. Skewed a little more towards the Matrix than the real world.

Fans that are complaining seem to not understand the Ubisoft wants to move the story of Assassins vs Templars forward and they're using the film(s) to do that.

If you keep going to the past over and over and over in every medium without moving the present day narrative forward then the story becomes stagnant.

On the gaming side AC fatigue is hitting hard. That's mainly because the series doesn't have a present day protagonist.

The original plan for the first trilogy was that by the third game we would play as Desmond in the present day fighting off Templars with the skills he acquired from the Animus. For whatever reason Ubi scrapped that idea and introduced probably the most hated protagonist in the series, Connor.

So now they've taken Desmond's role as modern day badass and have given it to Fassbender's character and I'm completely fine with this.

The AC movie will be more AC3 than AC3 ended up being.

Just some insight of a long time player of this series.

 

[MadVillainy]

But you can move the present story forward and still go to the past.
I mean the fact is, everyone likes the past stuff. That's what should be the focus.

 

[BlueLanternKal]

The past stuff is a glorified plot device for the present stuff.

I like this universe. I rather them adapt it well, then rehashing one of their games for the big screen, except it isn't interactive so won't be as well received.

 

[MadVillainy]

Yeah but the past is what everyone likes. Even if it is just a plot device it's the draw to this whole universe

Hell I think you couldve made a movie with just the past stuff and it couldve been a success. Not saying that's where they should go I'm just saying. Again, like The Matrix, what is the draw of The Matrix? It's going into the Matrix and seeing all the crazy stuff in there

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

The original plan for the first trilogy was that by the third game we would play as Desmond in the present day fighting off Templars with the skills he acquired from the Animus. For whatever reason Ubi scrapped that idea and introduced probably the most hated protagonist in the series, Connor.

Smart move. Desmond is the most boring character in the series, other than the nameless, voiceless guys you play in games like Black Flag. I'd take Connor any day over Desmond. I wouldn't even have bothered with AC3, if it was entirely set in the present. Too much of that game was set in the present as it was.