Octoberist
point blank
- Joined
- May 13, 2005
- Messages
- 46,465
- Reaction score
- 17
- Points
- 33
Wow. I just love those petty excuses. "Oh, Hollywood's always gonna be making these movies." So? What the hell does that have to do with being faithful to the material? If they want to make up some new characters and storylines for a lame-brain 'Raiders' remake, I wouldn't mind. But instead, they're taking a game that millions have grown up with and turned it into something that generic and uninspired. It feels like the screenwriters for the film just cherry-picked a bunch of stories out of the present 'PoP' games and threw 'em into the movie.
Why couldn't they have just played the games and translate them on over to the big-screen with some class. This is an adaption, afterall. I don't mind if it's somewhat different, if it's got a new character or further develops one so the audience could relate more to him or her. But, of course not. They're just gonna have the characters shoot-out mediocre dialogue back-and-forth at each other. If the actors maybe had a little more charisma (like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Mel Gibson or Jackie Chan), I could buy into it. But, no. Let's just hire these guys because they're the prettiest of the bunch and we can do them up to make them look even more attractive than they are. Then people will love them!
Give me a break. I've just had it up to the sky with these kind of movies that rely so greatly on charismatic characters, and yet they don't even hire charismatic actors to portray them.
I see what you're saying and yeah, I'm in the same boat as you in most cases. But I'm not gonna paint it broad strokes and condemn all movies like that because we're all guilty of liking one or few of them. And I think there's worse looking movies than 'Prince of Persia'.
I hope that you're not putting 'Clash' over 'Prince' as if it's in another category when it's clearly not.
Last edited:

