Gee, a movie about a video game... I wonder if it's going to SUCK?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Come on. There were some video game movies that were good. I just haven't seen them. Oh wait...You're right. They don't exist.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I'm just waiting for someone to cone in here and try to convince me about a single game-based movie that didn't suck. I've seen them all (and I mean ALL of them. Hell, I've even seen Bloodrayne and Alone In the Dark, OK?) and I can't think of one myself.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Have you seen the Final Fantasy Movies? Please do tell me how those suck? They are awesome!
[ August 09, 2006, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: B34N ]
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Oh yeah and then there's Resident Evil!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I saw Final Fantasy, and in my opinion, it sucked.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Oh, you're so wrong the animation was some of the best I have ever seen and Advent's Children is the most realistic animaiton I have EVER seen. Story wise they may not be that great but they are top notch in tech anime.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I saw Final Fantasy, and in my opinion, it sucked.
The first half of it was pretty good. Granted, the second doesn't justify it as a good movie.
Advent Children, though, I must admit looks fantastic, but I have yet to see it.
Mario Brothers- Had it's moments, but sucked. Mortal Kombat- First was a quarter way decent, sequel undeniably sucked. Doom- I believe this is the defining movie for the average level of suck in a Video Game movie. Silent Hill - arguably bad. Resident Evil - Again, had it's moments, definately the upper portion of most video game movies. Street Fighter- Mortal Kombat 2 level of suck. Laura Croft- Bouncy bouncy, snore snore, bouncy bouncy bouncy. Laura Croft Sequel- Bouncy bouncy, ooo, better than the first... wait, no never mind, bouncy bouncy. Double Dragon- Laughable.
While I love Halo as a game, I'm in the "this is going to be a huge let down" camp. I see no way, no possible way to do the covenant in a way that won't be terrible, and with the flood in there, it will just be another zombie-ish movie, much like that of Doom. All in all, I think Halo as a movie will equate to the same level that "The Scorpian King" is on.
Posted by Jeesh (Member # 9163) on :
Mario Brothers was made into a movie?
Out of any video game they could pick, they pick Halo? I can't believe it.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Ah... Street Fighter... The movie was so bad it killed Raul Julia.
Yes, Super Mario Brothers was made in to a movie. The only redeeming values it had was (1) Dennis Hopper as the bad guy, and (2) Almost Unreal, the soundtrack by Roxette.
And I refuse to accept that Doom was based on the video game, especially when hell is never mentioned.
They'll make any game in to a movie. Uwe Boll (sp?) is infamous for that; he's the king of making video game movies that suck. He's working on Postal and Far Cry after that.
Why wouldn't they pick Halo? It's one of the most known franchises. I'm surprised they haven't done Half-Life yet (no, the low budget crap with Screech in it doesn't count).
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
T_Smith, you forgot the fantastic glory that is Wing Commander. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I actually heard that Denzel Washington was going to be in the Halo movie.
Which boggles the mind. I mean, I've never seen a movie with him in it that I didn't like but on the other hand, video game movies shriek 'SUCK!'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's an unconfirmed rumor that Washington will be in it, anyway. Probably a bit sketchy. What's not unconfirmed is that Peter Jackson is the executive producer, which brings up some of the same problems!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by B34N: Oh, you're so wrong the animation was some of the best I have ever seen and Advent's Children is the most realistic animaiton I have EVER seen. Story wise they may not be that great but they are top notch in tech anime.
Good animation doesn't mean it's a good movie. I thought The Spirits Within was mediocre. Advent Children would only appeal to people who played and liked FFVII; it doesn't stand on its own as a movie.
Halo has potential, but the more Bungie themselves are involved in the story work, the better.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Oh, and if anyone is wondering what "that awesome Citroen dancing" is, you can see it here. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I actually heard that Denzel Washington was going to be in the Halo movie.
Which boggles the mind. I mean, I've never seen a movie with him in it that I didn't like but on the other hand, video game movies shriek 'SUCK!'
I've actually seen several movies with him that I didn't like.
However, I've always liked him in those movies.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Honestly, I liked Super Mario Brothers when it first came out. I imagine that being eight at the time had a lot to do with this.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I thought that both of the Resident Evil movies were pretty good, especially the first one. Decent acting, good chemistry between the characters, excellent special effects. I suppose the dialog could have used some work, but in movies like those one can't expect anything terribly deep or witty.
Thought I never played any of the games. Was it bad to you because it wasn't consistent with the games?
Also, if I re-watched the Mario Brothers movie I'm sure I would agree with you on its quality, but at the time it came out, I was a big fan.
Also also, I haven't seen the Silent Hill movie, but I heard it was decent. Was I mislead?
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
This movie is going to suck. Neil Blomkamp has only one thing of any 'importance' to him - that Citroen dancing transforming car commercial.
I just saw his short movie "TempBot" and not only was it completely boring - it was a crappy short film too, and that's saying something. '
Oh well, so far we got Peter "I actually made a 3 hour version of King Kong boring" Jackson, some nobody as the director that does commercials and boring short movies, a different script which most likely means diverging from the source material and a rumor of Denzel Washington playing Master Chief.
Yeah, it's gonna be effin' great. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
I can't picture Denzel as Master Chief. "The Rock", perhaps, but he's busy making eighteen other movies.
BTW: "The Rock" is starring in the Spy Hunter movie...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I thought that both of the Resident Evil movies were pretty good, especially the first one.
>.<
I never played the game, and I thought it was pretty bad.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Meh, different strokes.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE: This movie is going to suck. Neil Blomkamp has only one thing of any 'importance' to him - that Citroen dancing transforming car commercial.
I just saw his short movie "TempBot" and not only was it completely boring - it was a crappy short film too, and that's saying something.
You're kidding, right? I thought "Tempbot" was brilliant, along with Blomkamp's other short, "Alive in Joberg." Both films use common science fiction tropes to discuss a deeper theme not commonly addressed in the genre (especially "Joberg," which is a really thoughtful analysis of race relations), and in a way that is emotionally resonant- and pretty damn funny, in the case of "Tempbot". Not to mention that the compositing of the CG robots and aliens into hand-held footage is pretty much the best use of CG I've seen in an indie.
I have no idea whether this will translate to a good Halo movie, but it shows that Blomkamp's got skills, and that he's got a great eye for imagery and the ability to turn science fiction cliches on their heads, which I think will be crucial in making "Halo" more than "Starship Troopers: Redux." More importantly, both of his short films show that he can make an audience empathize with a character with no face- an obvious advantage when your main character's a helmeted cyborg.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: I can't picture Denzel as Master Chief.
I don't think he'd be the Chief. There's a black military officer with a somewhat prominent role who could easily be played by Denzel Washington, though, and the role could be expanded since the Chief isn't all that talkative.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
Don't get me wrong, I love Denzel Washington. He's an amazing actor (watch Man on Fire), and it has nothing to do with the fact that the man is black and the MC is a white man.
The MC is a character who will probably not even show his face in the movie. That was the thing in the Halo games. You never see his face, because he's supposed to be you, the player. In the books (which are very good) he's described as having a name, John, and a number 117. A reference to the bible scripture.
Anyway, sorry about the tangent - the point is all they need is a great voice actor to play the part of the MC. And Denzel, while a fantastic actor, doesn't have the MC voice. The MC is a battle hardened soldier, gruff, almost unfeeling. Denzel doesn't sound like that.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE: Don't get me wrong, I love Denzel Washington. He's an amazing actor (watch Man on Fire), and it has nothing to do with the fact that the man is black and the MC is a white man.
The MC is a character who will probably not even show his face in the movie. That was the thing in the Halo games. You never see his face, because he's supposed to be you, the player. In the books (which are very good) he's described as having a name, John, and a number 117. A reference to the bible scripture.
Anyway, sorry about the tangent - the point is all they need is a great voice actor to play the part of the MC. And Denzel, while a fantastic actor, doesn't have the MC voice. The MC is a battle hardened soldier, gruff, almost unfeeling. Denzel doesn't sound like that.
Well, technically, you never see the face or hear a word from the Doom Marine, either. That didn't stop them.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Maybe they can have Denzel be the face, Eric Bana as the actor under the suit, and The Rock can do the voice.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The only thing this movie has going for it is that the bar is set so low for video game movies that if it's only an 8 on the suckage scale, it'll be considered a vast success.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
If its better than The Scorpian King, I'll give it my approval.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: If its better than The Scorpian King, I'll give it my approval.
No point in raising the bar further than that, is there?
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
I can only stand so much disappointment and survive. If you judge things with respect to The Scorpian King, you tend not to overdose on a heaping pile of crushed hopes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: I can only stand so much disappointment and survive. If you judge things with respect to The Scorpian King, you tend not to overdose on a heaping pile of crushed hopes.
You also have to give just about every single movie some sort of award for best picture, and perhaps consider about 50 different movies as epochs.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
I'm a generally happy movie goer, yes. I believe others call it "movie whore."
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Well, technically, you never see the face or hear a word from the Doom Marine, either. That didn't stop them.
Executive director of the Halo movie project is Peter Jackson, and Bungie is carefully managing and overseeing the movie production. The game series has three books expanding the game world at length, providing for a wealth of situational themes. If ever there was a chance to have a video game movie that doesn't suck (assuming we've completely forgotten Tron) -- this is it.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Executive director of the Halo movie project is Peter Jackson, and Bungie is carefully managing and overseeing the movie production. The game series has three books expanding the game world at length, providing for a wealth of situational themes. If ever there was a chance to have a video game movie that doesn't suck (assuming we've completely forgotten Tron) -- this is it.
yeah, peter jackson and bugie = good things to come. I am pretty excited about it. Not as excited as EG but Halo is a great game with a really cool story.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
What really has a good story is Bungie's previous FPS trilogy: Marathon, Marathon 2: Durandal, and Marathon: Infinity. From what little I've read about the Halo story, it does seem like they've drawn some themes from Marathon and that there may even be some overlap between the two.
A rampant Cortana would probably sell me a copy of Halo 3. I loved how Durandal's rampancy was handled in Marathon 2, even though I never played the whole game.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Wow, I've never even heard of those games were they for PC?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
They were roughly contemporaneous with the original Doom games. I believe Marathon 2 was released for the PC, but I'm not sure about either of the others -- until Oni, Bungie was primarily a Mac developer. The first two Myth games were probably their best-known crossplatform titles before Halo.
Bungie open-sourced Marathon 2 a while back, and the Aleph One project redid the game with high-res textures. There's definitely a Windows version of Aleph One, but you need the original data files to play the game.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I personally loved the Mario Movie. All other video game movies have sucked. Peter Jackson (aka worst film maker in the history of man) being involved in any way will make the movei one of the worst of all time.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Wow, not a fan of the rings I am guessing. I think people might take offense to that one.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
I had faith in Peter Jackson before. Then he made King Kong and lost all credibility.
I don't know how an action film about a giant gorilla can be boring, but he made it happen.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
King Kong was masterful.
There, I said it. Masterful. Completely and totally beautiful. Long.... but awe inspiring.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Haha, LOL, I haven't even seen it yet so I still have only the rings to think about when it comes to him. Everyone's allowed a bad one, but your right -- screwing up a classic like King Kong will lose you a lot of brownie points.
Posted by Squish (Member # 9191) on :
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I saw Final Fantasy, and in my opinion, it sucked.
The first half of it was pretty good. Granted, the second doesn't justify it as a good movie.
Advent Children, though, I must admit looks fantastic, but I have yet to see it.
Mario Brothers- Had it's moments, but sucked. Mortal Kombat- First was a quarter way decent, sequel undeniably sucked. Doom- I believe this is the defining movie for the average level of suck in a Video Game movie. Silent Hill - arguably bad. Resident Evil - Again, had it's moments, definately the upper portion of most video game movies. Street Fighter- Mortal Kombat 2 level of suck. Laura Croft- Bouncy bouncy, snore snore, bouncy bouncy bouncy. Laura Croft Sequel- Bouncy bouncy, ooo, better than the first... wait, no never mind, bouncy bouncy. Double Dragon- Laughable.
While I love Halo as a game, I'm in the "this is going to be a huge let down" camp. I see no way, no possible way to do the covenant in a way that won't be terrible, and with the flood in there, it will just be another zombie-ish movie, much like that of Doom. All in all, I think Halo as a movie will equate to the same level that "The Scorpian King" is on.
Wow. I don't think I've seen any of those movies. Except FF. I liked both of them. Oh, I take that back. I did see Mortal Combat. If the Halo movie is actually on the same level as the Scorpion King... I just might see it. ('Course the Rock is kinda hot.)
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: King Kong was masterful.
There, I said it. Masterful. Completely and totally beautiful. Long.... but awe inspiring.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I just want to know if the Denzel would really let that Blue Elite grab his ass. "Uh-oh-- this is it, baby. Hold me."
We've had long arguments over whether that Elite could possibly be the Arbiter. I tend to stake my argument on the fact that its blue, where the Arbiter was wearing gold at the beginning of Halo 2. I'll only grant that it could be the dude with the broken jaw from Halo 2.
So they have a producer and a director. This makes it closer to actuation than Ender's Game in what way?
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: King Kong was masterful.
There, I said it. Masterful. Completely and totally beautiful. Long.... but awe inspiring.
Lessee..
A 20 minute 'boat in the storm about to crash on the island' scene. Hey, Peter - we're here to see a big monkey, man - not to witness the sinking of the Lusitania. Get on with it.
A 20 minute dino stampede scene that accomplished absolutely nothing, and lets not forget Jack Black can out run these dinos.
A 20 minute 'dino crash' scene where the aforementioned dinos collide with eachother while trying to turn and proceed to fall for about an hour or two.
An extremely boring, overdone fight scene between 2 T-Rexes and Kong, then one T-rex and Kong... then that same T-Rex and Kong caught in the vines, THEN THE OTHER TREX AND KONG... all the while the girl is somehow able to survive
Jackson's need to show us that 'everything on this island is big' with Kong, the lizards, and finally the bugs (I mean come on already). I was really hoping to see some huge fish, parrots and maybe some big kittens.
A severely overdone plane sequence that easily could have been about an hour shorter than it was and still accomplish the same thing.
If you want to call a really boring film with those flaws, among other flaws I didn't even mention masterful be my guest.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Well, now I don't have to see the movie anymore. Thanks!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
How can someone else's opinion on a film be wrong? I think he was your guest.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
Halo will be good if it expands on the story set out in the games. It will not be so good if it is just a retelling of the one or both of the games.
However, the inclusion of Joe Staten as the voice of a Grunt will automatically make the movie awesome, regardless of anything else.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
i think the Halo movie is going to be more of an extension of the movie with info from the books put in?
But that is honestly just an educated guess from what I have been able to gather around the net.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: Well, now I don't have to see the movie anymore. Thanks!
I don't know if your comment was sarcastic in nature, or if it was sincere but I can tell you this.
I just saved you 3 hours of bad film and a sore behind. You're welcome. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
It was a bit of both. I wasn't interested in seeing that movie anyway. I'll keep my memories of the original and the remake with Jessica Lange in a skimpy outfit, thank you.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE:
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: King Kong was masterful.
There, I said it. Masterful. Completely and totally beautiful. Long.... but awe inspiring.
Lessee..
A 20 minute 'boat in the storm about to crash on the island' scene. Hey, Peter - we're here to see a big monkey, man - not to witness the sinking of the Lusitania. Get on with it.
A 20 minute dino stampede scene that accomplished absolutely nothing, and lets not forget Jack Black can out run these dinos.
A 20 minute 'dino crash' scene where the aforementioned dinos collide with eachother while trying to turn and proceed to fall for about an hour or two.
An extremely boring, overdone fight scene between 2 T-Rexes and Kong, then one T-rex and Kong... then that same T-Rex and Kong caught in the vines, THEN THE OTHER TREX AND KONG... all the while the girl is somehow able to survive
Jackson's need to show us that 'everything on this island is big' with Kong, the lizards, and finally the bugs (I mean come on already). I was really hoping to see some huge fish, parrots and maybe some big kittens.
A severely overdone plane sequence that easily could have been about an hour shorter than it was and still accomplish the same thing.
If you want to call a really boring film with those flaws, among other flaws I didn't even mention masterful be my guest.
Oh boy do I have nitpicks for you....
First- lets take the "boat crashing" scene as being from the moment the captains compass goes wonky, to the moment jack black and crew get off on a boat. You have, at best, 10 minutes. In these 10 minutes, there are 3 main things going on
1) A metaphorical situation where we see no matter which way we look, no matter where we turn, we are drawn to the island, there is no escape from it.
2) We see the Captains love of his crew.
3) It suspenseful.
The movie is not all about "seeing a big monkey." The movie has three main themes- romantic love, love of the magnificent unknown, and how we end up destroying that which we care for by trying to change it. Does Peter Jackson throw in a lot of GCI eye candy? Heck yea, and I love it.
You're Dino Stampede/Crash altogether about 15-20 minutes, assuming you are taking it from the moment Jack Black and the Actor guy go off till the camera guy gets eaten.
What this scene accomplishes is 4 things.
1st) It shows Jack Blacks absolute amazement and love of what he's seeing.
2) Suspense. Am I the only guy who likes suspense? Come on, they're on a prehistoric-like island. Are you going to tell me they are not going to have any kind of run in with Dinosaurs? Or are you going to tell me that a run in with dinosaurs can be believably resolved in 3 minutes with the same effect?
3) It shows the cowardice of the actor, and the heroicness of the writer. This goes into one of the themes of the movie, the romantic love, showing that the real heros, the real good guys aren't exactly the pretty boys.
4) It shows Jack Blacks beginning of destroying what he loves. When the camera man dies, he talks about how he'll do this and that for the guy, for the price of an admission ticket.
"An extremely boring, overdone fight scene between 2 T-Rexes and Kong, then one T-rex and Kong... then that same T-Rex and Kong caught in the vines, THEN THE OTHER TREX AND KONG... all the while the girl is somehow able to survive"
This coming from the guy who said "show us a big monkey!?" The whole scene, while admittedly being longer than needed, was not boring and was incredibly essential to setting up the connection between Ms. Dawson and Kong.
Overdone plane sequence!? Are you mad!? If they had started whipping Kong and putting him on a cross, I might agree with you. The point is that Kong had an incredible disadvantage, and still managed to put up a heck of a fight. It was the final accent in pointing out how magnificent and unique and beautiful Kong was, knowing that he was doomed but still rooting for him to win. Every second of this scene was beautiful.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
You might have had valid arguments if you hadn't used the word suspense. The movie was not suspenseful.
It was boring. I literally cried out "WHENS THIS SCENE GOING TO END" about 3 or 4 times. Rationalizing that a scene I claimed took 20 minutes only took 10 or 15 isn't exactly helping your argument.
The fact stands, T_Smith. You might have liked it, sure. But the movie is boring.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: how we end up destroying that which we care for by trying to change it.
That quote can be used against Peter the Terrible Filmmaker (Peter Jackson). He tried to change a movie he loved, and ended up destroying it and making it absolutely terrible. Worst movie I've ever seen in the history of my life.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Can a movie be both boring and good at the same time? My comment when I got out of the theater was "Boy was that a butt-number, but it was good".
What I hated about it was Jack Black. Cannot stand him. That whole "Twas beauty that killed the beast" line at the end just made me wanna laugh, then smack him for being such an awful actor.
And don't go raggin on Peter Jackson. He made LOTR, and if you dare say they weren't masterfully done, I'll ... say you're wrong.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Well then, I'm sorry, and I don't mean to instigate, but not only were the LOTR films not masterfully done, IMO, they were dreadfully bad. Also boring. After I watched the first one, I only saw the rest so that if they were bad, I could say so. But nothing will ever be worse than King Kong...ever. The movie was a butt-number, but it was also boring, uneventful and stupid. The only reason I didn't fall asleep, was because I'd already paid, and that would be a waste of money.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: Can a movie be both boring and good at the same time?
Yes I have seen a lot of them.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
"Rationalizing that a scene I claimed took 20 minutes only took 10 or 15 isn't exactly helping your argument."
Likewise, rationalizing that a movie was boring based upon the apparent lenghth of scenes isn't helping yours, which was the majority of what you were saying.
By the way, I am totally not arguing this with any type of hate, and I hope I didn't come off that way.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:
And don't go raggin on Peter Jackson. He made LOTR, and if you dare say they weren't masterfully done, I'll ... say you're wrong. [/QB]
no no, I liked the Rings movies. I thought he did a great job recreating the books. I said I had faith in him.. then he went and screwed up Kong and lost all credibility.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by T_Smith: "Rationalizing that a scene I claimed took 20 minutes only took 10 or 15 isn't exactly helping your argument."
Likewise, rationalizing that a movie was boring based upon the apparent lenghth of scenes isn't helping yours, which was the majority of what you were saying.
By the way, I am totally not arguing this with any type of hate, and I hope I didn't come off that way.
Not at all. =)
I was talking about the length of the scenes, yes, but the point I was trying to get across is that a 15 minute dino stampede really had nothing to do with King Kong, which - though you might disagree - is the reason people went to see that movie.
People went to see Hulk to see The Hulk, and he didn't show up until almost half the movie was over, and even then there wasn't enough of him.
Another thing about that 15 minute scene is that it was completely boring. Did we really need to see an extension of that scene, too? The extension I'm talking about is the 'crash' scene at the end of it. Even a simple dinosaur falling on it's butt was completely overdone. They were dinos. On an island. That no one cared about. And they got nearly as much screen time as Kong!
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum: not only were the LOTR films not masterfully done, IMO, they were dreadfully bad. Also boring. After I watched the first one, I only saw the rest so that if they were bad, I could say so.
You're wrong.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I actually heard that Denzel Washington was going to be in the Halo movie.
Which boggles the mind. I mean, I've never seen a movie with him in it that I didn't like but on the other hand, video game movies shriek 'SUCK!'
This could cause the universe to explode. Denzel makes only good movies. Even bad movies with him in them are decent viewing material, "Fallen" for instance, is watchable for this reason (though barely).
So at least if he's in it, it might be bearable.
This is something hollywood aught to learn: if a movie looks like it might suck, you need Denzel Washington in it, and maybe Anthony Hopkins. If the movie looks like it is going to be SO bad you can tell by the title that its going to bomb BIG time, then you get Samuel L. Jackson to do his thing, and you get people to see it anyway (XXX is perhaps the exception, even Jackson can't make that moview watchable, its just TOO CORNY! Although prime real-estate for a movie-to-game adaption, which it should have been in the first place).
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE: They were dinos. On an island. That no one cared about. And they got nearly as much screen time as Kong!
My God, you're right! Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Can a movie be both boring and good at the same time?
Definitely. They can even be boring and PHENOMENAL.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
As a curiosity, PUNJABEE, did you like Batman Begins?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I still haven't seen 2001: A Space Oddyssey. Some people recommend it highly, some people recommend it for when you feel like clawing your eyeballs out. I'm quite partial to my eyeballs, so I've held off on watching it.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Only a little, but yes sad to say Halo is further along than EG
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lord Solar Macharius: As a curiosity, PUNJABEE, did you like Batman Begins?
I did. If your reason for asking me the question is related to the fact that Batman in his suit doesn't show up until half-way through the film, I've already got an answer for you.
I read up on the Begins and knew that Batman wasn't going to show up for a good part of it. At first I was a little bummed about it (though I'm not the biggest Batman fan) but I soon realized that this movie was't really about Batman. It was about Bruce Wayne's transformation into Batman.
That formula worked just fine, especially considering how well the story was written for the film, and that it had some great source material (Year One, Hush, Long Halloween) to be based on.
Unfortunately - it didn't work for Kong. Begins was also hardly boring.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
I just wanted to chime in and say that I really liked Jackson's King Kong on the whole, that it was not boring, and that it was not perfect.
There were a lot of unrealistic things in that movie. Punjabee mentioned the fact that Ann survived the T-Rex fight was unrealistic, and it was. Not just that, but pretty much anytime Kong carries her in his hand he shakes her around so much it would have killed nearly any normal human.
Then there's the fact that Skull Island is home to far more really large animals than any island that size could possibly support, especially large predators. I also thought it was pretty ridiculous that when the T-Rex noticed Ann, he dropped the far larger meal he was already eating in order to chase her.
But given the fact that this is a movie about a 25-foot tall gorilla that lives on an island filled with dinosaurs, a certain level of suspension of disbelief is kind of required in order to watch the movie.
I think your problems with the movie, Punjabee, mostly stem from your expectations of it. You say you (and everyone else) just wanted to see Kong, not the dinosaurs and other stuff. Well, I wanted to see Skull Island, too, and I loved the other stuff. Yes, the movie is about Kong and his attachment to Ann, but a big part of the movie is also about a group of people's struggle to survive in an incredibly hostile, alien environment. The Skull Island scenes served that purpose wonderfully, in my opinion. The T-Rex fight, in particular, was a marvel of an action scene to me.
And this is going back to a comment on the first page, but I want to talk about Final Fantasy Advent Children a bit. It absolutely was fanservice to those who played and enjoyed the game, which I did. Even to me, though, the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense, precisely because it was a continuation of the game, and the plot in the game didn't make sense either.
Even with that, though, I still enjoyed the movie a lot. It's one of the few movies that had action scenes good enough that it redeemed a mediocre story. In my opinion, that movie should be required viewing for anyone who wants to make CGI movie. It's a great example of taking advantage of the computer animated medium and doing things that would never be possible with an actual camera. And I'm not talking about the normal special effects and huge monsters thing, but the camera work itself. Visual effects like zooming the camera around at impossible speeds, and getting right in between two fighters' faces, and other stuff that you just can't do with a dolly.
About the original thread topic, I think Halo has a chance of not sucking, but I won't be heartbroken either way. I'm one of the few gamers who has never played Halo 1 or 2, so I don't have a whole lot of personal attachment to the franchise.
If they ever made a Zelda movie and it sucked, though, I'd probably be scarred for life.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A general bit of advice: If you are a person willing to outright describe Kong as 'totally boring' or the Lord of the Rings trilogy as being 'dreadfully bad,' then you're pretty much going to have to live with the fact that most moviegoers and professional movie critics are going to think that you are mental.
But, after all, that's the miracle of subjective artistic perspective -- Kong is terrible, Kong is wonderful, Rings was atrocious, Rings was sex on filmreel, everyone's right, horray.
quote:Worst movie I've ever seen in the history of my life.
That's nearly impossible, unless you live in a strictly contained media vaccum which carefully screens input. I don't believe it -- you've never seen anything worse on television? No late-night or TBS specials? No cheezy low-budget kid movies from times past? No saturday matinee flicks from the bargain reel bin?
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
No, I have never ever seen a film that bored me so much, and was as dreadfully atrocious. Not only was it boring though, but through glaringly STUPID incidents and just awefull directing, it made me angry. I was angry I spent my money on that piece of junk. Yes, it was the worst movie I've ever seen. There are others that are bad, but this movie just makes me angry.
My opinion generally tends to go against critics and their thoughts. IMO, the best film of 2005 was by far and large a tie: War of the Worlds, and Star Wars Episode 3. They both rank #1 on my list of best films ever. They share the number one spot with about 15 other films.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Wow. You thought King Kong was bad because of "stupid incidents" and "awefull directing," but War of the Worlds and Star Wars Episode 3 are your favorite movies of all time?
How do you manage the internal contradictions without your head exploding?
Seriously, though, I would be interested in hearing your criteria for what makes a movie good.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
War of the Worlds? War of the Worlds??? You've got to be freaking kidding me. It wasn't a horrible movie, but seriously ... the kid walks over a hill into an enormous conflagration and lives? At the very least the kid should have died. I'm pissed they had kids in it the first place. They butchered the scene in the basement. Have you read the book? That movie was ... yeah, wow ... War of the Worlds?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I did like Episode 3, but not one of my favorite films.
The worst film I've ever seen was ... *drumroll* ... Alligator 2. hehe. Me and my dad watched Alligator 1 and Alligator 2 one weekend (Friday and Saturday night) and wow ... they were bad. 2 wasn't even funny bad. It was just ... ugh.
Reticulum, go watch The Six String Samurai. I wanna hear your opinion about that movie.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:IMO, the best film of 2005 was by far and large a tie: War of the Worlds, and Star Wars Episode 3. They both rank #1 on my list of best films ever.
Remember that stuff about being considered mental?
Beware -- it starts piling on now.
/edit -- I mean, before now. I was too slow.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
quote:And this is going back to a comment on the first page, but I want to talk about Final Fantasy Advent Children a bit. It absolutely was fanservice to those who played and enjoyed the game, which I did. Even to me, though, the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense, precisely because it was a continuation of the game, and the plot in the game didn't make sense either.
Even with that, though, I still enjoyed the movie a lot. It's one of the few movies that had action scenes good enough that it redeemed a mediocre story. In my opinion, that movie should be required viewing for anyone who wants to make CGI movie. It's a great example of taking advantage of the computer animated medium and doing things that would never be possible with an actual camera. And I'm not talking about the normal special effects and huge monsters thing, but the camera work itself. Visual effects like zooming the camera around at impossible speeds, and getting right in between two fighters' faces, and other stuff that you just can't do with a dolly.
About the original thread topic, I think Halo has a chance of not sucking, but I won't be heartbroken either way. I'm one of the few gamers who has never played Halo 1 or 2, so I don't have a whole lot of personal attachment to the franchise.
If they ever made a Zelda movie and it sucked, though, I'd probably be scarred for life.
I have never played a single Final Fantasy game and I got the plot the first time I watched it and even more so the second time. I keep picking up on new things everytime that I watch it, but you can't just look at the surface of the film, there are too many historical and political references in the film that lie under the surface.
As for required viewing if you're going into CGI I agree wholeheartedly. The visuals were ultrarealistic and the camera movements were tremendous.
A movie about Zelda is a great idea. But I don't have a clue how that story would turn out. Somehting like Willow, meets Braveheart, meets legend???
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
quote:I have never played a single Final Fantasy game and I got the plot the first time I watched it and even more so the second time. I keep picking up on new things everytime that I watch it, but you can't just look at the surface of the film, there are too many historical and political references in the film that lie under the surface.
Well, admittedly I've only watched the movie once, and I was mostly paying attention to the action scenes. What are some of the 'under the surface' references that you're talking about?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The worst film I've ever seen was ... *drumroll* ... Alligator 2.
That's a good one! I think you can trump it with Carnosaur 2.
Also, some may disagree with me, but the movie I had the least fun watching ever was Ichi the Killer. It was schlocky, visually and thematically exploitational, and pretentiously pseudoartistic in, like, all of the bad ways. There were also profoundly unexpected WTF moments involving very, very bad CGI that comes without warning.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Well, since there is a strong anime influence on the movie there are the themes based in every manga and anime of importance made after WWII. Now this is something that I had to research tremendously a couple years back so this is more information from other sources, since I have never been to Japan and only know a couple of people personally who have real experince with the Japanese culture, this should all be taken with a "Grain of Salt."
In films like Akira, Metropolis, Ghost in the Shell and both Final Fantasy films...there is undoubtedly the influence of the devestation known in Japan after the bombs were dropped. The pain and suffereing people went through int he decades after. This is most apparent in Akira but also very easily found in Advent Children. The geostigma would be seen as the devistation caused by the radiation of the nuclear fallout. Beyaond that I would have to go back and watch the film again and look back into my research notes to give you more specifics without the possiblity of misquoting research. This is also aparent in The Spirits Within.
There are also so parrelells that can be found in the anime "Spirited Away". The coolest thing about the Final Fantasy Movies is that there are so many layers that the films exist on. As you mentioned the action sequences add interest for people who like shoot 'em up and blow 'em up films (which I am included) but there are also philisophical and intellectual layers to film that can very powerful if looked at closely enough. And they are kind of kid friendly in that they are about video games that kids or rather young adults play.
Hopefully that helps if you want more information I will go back to the notes and rewatch adn start new thread on the matter.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Now that you mention it, I can definitely see the "devastation" theme in that movie. You pretty much answered my question with that post, but if you want to make a new thread to explore further I would certainly be interested.
Oh, and about any hypothetical Zelda movie, I'm not sure how it would go, because the Zelda games haven't usually been all that big on traditional story elements. It's more about making a coherent, expansive world for you to explore in than giving a good narrative. They have started doing better with the story parts in the more recent games, though, so I'm sure it could be done. I would much prefer an animated Zelda movie to live-action, though.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Final Fantasy movies are nothing but purty tech demos.
Seriously, the plot and narratives are so threadbare it's not accurate to call such "moving pictures", actual movies. We never had insane CGI when we were sitting 'round the campfire but we had much more moving story arcs and characterizations than the FF movies ever displayed.
They're as hollow as the wireframes they're made with.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
Yeah, the Zelda's I've played always seem to be more about the sdeture of the inner world of the game and less about the narative, I am glad to hear that they have fixed that since I ahve played them.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki: How do you manage the internal contradictions without your head exploding?
Because IMO, War of the Worlds and Episode 3 are fantastic films. Pure genuine excitement IMO, they aren't overly long IMO, they have excellent action scenes IMO. War of the Worlds was definitely the best movie I've ever seen in theatres, and yes, I read the book a few years ago. The book and the movie are a lot different from each other, and I must say I find them equally good.
There is one possible explanation for why I have never seen a movie worse than King Kong... there aren't any.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
You IMO have really, really, IMO bad taste in film IMO. And you use IMO too much (which is at all IMO). Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki: How do you manage the internal contradictions without your head exploding?
Because IMO, War of the Worlds and Episode 3 are fantastic films. Pure genuine excitement IMO, they aren't overly long IMO, they have excellent action scenes IMO. War of the Worlds was definitely the best movie I've ever seen in theatres, and yes, I read the book a few years ago. The book and the movie are a lot different from each other, and I must say I find them equally good.
There is one possible explanation for why I have never seen a movie worse than King Kong... there aren't any.
I liked Episode III - It was IMO the best out of all the star wars to date. Why Anakin, why did you do it?
WOW - It's pretty good, could've done without dakota fanning but that is just a casting thing. The house interior scene was pretty lame, the battle over the hill was compeltely amazing though. And I really liked the way the aliens came into the movie.
But that's just IMO. Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
I thought the IMO thing might be funny. Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
So did I
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki:
How do you manage the internal contradictions without your head exploding?
Because IMO, War of the Worlds and Episode 3 are fantastic films. Pure genuine excitement IMO, they aren't overly long IMO, they have excellent action scenes IMO. War of the Worlds was definitely the best movie I've ever seen in theatres, and yes, I read the book a few years ago. The book and the movie are a lot different from each other, and I must say I find them equally good.
Hmm... either you missed the point of that line entirely or you're just ignoring it. I quoted you saying that King Kong had stupid incidents and bad directing. So let's take your paragons of moviemaking one at a time for those two criteria.
First off, for stupid incidents, Dr. Strangelove basically said it for War of the Worlds. I was pissed at the end of the movie when the kid walks out of that house alive, not just because there was no conceivable way that he should still be living, but because they brought such a stupid, self centered character back to life. I was really quite haapy earlier in the film when I thought he had died, just cause he was so irritating. Dakota Fanning was super annoying, too, and for that matter, even Tom Cruise's character was a jerk. That was my biggest problem with the film. It didn't have any likeable characters! And you know it's a problem in a disaster film when you keep rooting for all the main characters to die.
As for Ep. III, I did actually like that movie, although it was mostly because my expectations had been lowered so much by the first two prequels that anything would have seemed good in comparison. But still, you want stupid incidents? Anakin going from "I just want to help my wife" to "Okay, Master Palpatine, I'll go kill a bunch of children " in basically one scene has got to count pretty high on that list. And what's with the asthmatic robot? I mean, I know that he supposedly got his butt kicked by Mace Windu and that's why he can't breathe right, but still. Not a good idea to make one of your major villains sound like a 90 year man. Not unless you're making a comedy, anyway.
And directing talent? I love Lucas's stories, but the best thing he ever did was get somebody else to direct some of his movies. The man wouldn't know a well-delivered line of dialogue if it smacked him in the face.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki: And what's with the asthmatic robot? I mean, I know that he supposedly got his butt kicked by Mace Windu and that's why he can't breathe right, but still. Not a good idea to make one of your major villains sound like a 90 year man. Not unless you're making a comedy, anyway.
Grievous actually did get his lungs crushed, and it's shown in the Clone Wars cartoon, which was actually *WAY* better than the 3 prequels.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki: Not a good idea to make one of your major villains sound like a 90 year man. Not unless you're making a comedy, anyway.
This sounds like a job for Jackson Publick and Doc Hammer!
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki:
quote:Originally posted by Reticulum:
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki:
How do you manage the internal contradictions without your head exploding?
Because IMO, War of the Worlds and Episode 3 are fantastic films. Pure genuine excitement IMO, they aren't overly long IMO, they have excellent action scenes IMO. War of the Worlds was definitely the best movie I've ever seen in theatres, and yes, I read the book a few years ago. The book and the movie are a lot different from each other, and I must say I find them equally good.
Hmm... either you missed the point of that line entirely or you're just ignoring it. I quoted you saying that King Kong had stupid incidents and bad directing. So let's take your paragons of moviemaking one at a time for those two criteria.
First off, for stupid incidents, Dr. Strangelove basically said it for War of the Worlds. I was pissed at the end of the movie when the kid walks out of that house alive, not just because there was no conceivable way that he should still be living, but because they brought such a stupid, self centered character back to life. I was really quite haapy earlier in the film when I thought he had died, just cause he was so irritating. Dakota Fanning was super annoying, too, and for that matter, even Tom Cruise's character was a jerk. That was my biggest problem with the film. It didn't have any likeable characters! And you know it's a problem in a disaster film when you keep rooting for all the main characters to die.
As for Ep. III, I did actually like that movie, although it was mostly because my expectations had been lowered so much by the first two prequels that anything would have seemed good in comparison. But still, you want stupid incidents? Anakin going from "I just want to help my wife" to "Okay, Master Palpatine, I'll go kill a bunch of children " in basically one scene has got to count pretty high on that list. And what's with the asthmatic robot? I mean, I know that he supposedly got his butt kicked by Mace Windu and that's why he can't breathe right, but still. Not a good idea to make one of your major villains sound like a 90 year man. Not unless you're making a comedy, anyway.
And directing talent? I love Lucas's stories, but the best thing he ever did was get somebody else to direct some of his movies. The man wouldn't know a well-delivered line of dialogue if it smacked him in the face.
No, I got what you meant by saying that. All those incidents didn't really stick out much for me in those movies, so I really don't care. I enjoyed the characters in WotW. They are excellent enough movies so that for me they had no impact. I didn't care.
King Kong however... well it was so terrible that there wasn't a single moment of redemption for the movie except one awesome, cool, ruling, just plain good part... The End. That was my favorite part.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Would it have been better if Gary Oldman voiced Grievous? Damn the SAG for not letting that happen!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I was really surprised to find out today that Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within no longer holds the title of being the largest box-office bomb in all of movie history.
It's now number two behind Treasure Planet, the movie said to have finally slain traditional animation in the Eisner years at Disney.
Posted by T_Smith (Member # 3734) on :
Wait a second... what about Pluto Nash? I seriously thought that was the biggest bomb, even more so than FF: Spirits.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Wait a second... what about Pluto Nash? I seriously thought that was the biggest bomb, even more so than FF: Spirits.
Naw, Nash is at number five.
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was a serendipitous combination of practically everything that should be avoided in the business science of moviemaking. It could be used as a textbook example of doomed projects. Ignoring the movie's poor reception with moviegoers, Square fans and critics entirely, it is nearly impossible to have created a larger red line than existed with the Square Pictures project. Disney succeeded only by having train-wreck management (and retarded advertising and promotion) behind a production process (combination of traditional cel and CGI) which was nearly but not quite as expensive as Square Pictures' Maya 3D.
The production costs for the movie reached stratospheric levels: $137 million. It was a complete dud at the box office, and the movie closed theatres and live DVD sales with a $123 million loss. This figure does not count the expenses of Sony's aggressive marketing campaign for the movie, which I would estimate at somewhere around $30-$40 million.
Put it all together, and the movie represents a total loss of anywhere between $153-163 million dollars for Square Pictures, which promptly folded.
With Pluto Nash, the financial expenditure was so (comparatively) low, that Castle Rock could have put the completed movie in a box, forever and not attempted to recoup any money from the project at all, and they would have still been completely unable to match Square's loss. This is almost what they did: recognizing that the film was unsalvageable, they killed off all promotion costs, sat on the final release for a while, and eventually tacitly released it without any fuss, fanfare, or critic movie screenings. It's at #5 on the biggest-box-office-bombs list, behind other movies like Cutthroat Island, Around the World in 80 Days, and The Alamo.
A big part of the failure of The Spirits Within would have to involve how the movie didn't grok with most moviegoers at all. Even the few critics who liked the movie were compelled to hammer it for its nonsensical, esoteric plot, and criticize it for having the human figures fall soundly into the Uncanny Valley.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Naw, Nash is at number five.
Where is this list you're referring to?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's from a list of films generating losses. It's mentioned in Pluto Nash's Wikipedia article, and I think it's based on updated IMDB or Numbers data. Which I'm assuming are in order.
quote:As of 2006 this is the fifth-largest financial loss of any film ever made (after Treasure Planet, Cutthroat Island, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, The Alamo, and Around the World in 80 Days), both in absolute dollar values, and adjusted for inflation.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's from a list of films generating losses. It's mentioned in Pluto Nash's Wikipedia article, and I think it's based on updated IMDB or Numbers data. Which I'm assuming are in order.
quote:As of 2006 this is the fifth-largest financial loss of any film ever made (after Treasure Planet, Cutthroat Island, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, The Alamo, and Around the World in 80 Days), both in absolute dollar values, and adjusted for inflation.
It'd be nice if they put them in non-alphabetic order...
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
quote:Originally posted by PUNJABEE:
quote:Originally posted by Kamisaki: And what's with the asthmatic robot? I mean, I know that he supposedly got his butt kicked by Mace Windu and that's why he can't breathe right, but still. Not a good idea to make one of your major villains sound like a 90 year man. Not unless you're making a comedy, anyway.
Grievous actually did get his lungs crushed, and it's shown in the Clone Wars cartoon, which was actually *WAY* better than the 3 prequels.
Yeah, I know, I saw Clone Wars, and I agree that the cartoon was way better than the movie. I guess I should have left out the word "supposedly" from my post. But still, that incident in Clone Wars seemed to be just a way of explaining why Grievous had respiratory problems in Ep. 3, not an integral part of the plot to Clone Wars. So my point was they should have just left that part out of both, and have Grievous in Ep. 3 kick just as much ass as he did in Clone Wars.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
They are actually coming out with a new animated Star Wars Series.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Worst movie I've ever seen in the history of my life.
Yes, but aren't you 12? Point being, your taste in movies (as well as everything else) will change and expand as you get more experience. At that point, you'll likely be embarassed that you held up War of the Worlds as the best movie of the year while simultaneously panning the LOTR trilogy. Or not, who knows.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
*cough* 14 *cough*
There is a difference, you know.
And yes, you're probably right.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I swear to God, if the Halo movie has a single first-person view with him gunning enemies down, I will burn down the theater.
The Halo games have never had a very good story anyway (come on, the concept of a ring world was completely lifted from the book Ringworld) so the only thing I can imagine this will have going for it is pretty special effects and action.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I swear to God, if the Halo movie has a single first-person view with him gunning enemies down, I will burn down the theater.
The Halo games have never had a very good story anyway (come on, the concept of a ring world was completely lifted from the book Ringworld) so the only thing I can imagine this will have going for it is pretty special effects and action.
You know, that wouldn't have bothered me as much in Doom if the rest of the movie was even remotely close to the concept of the game. One four minute scene does not compensate for the other hour and a half of mindlessness deviation from the source material.
Posted by PUNJABEE (Member # 7359) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I swear to God, if the Halo movie has a single first-person view with him gunning enemies down, I will burn down the theater.
The Halo games have never had a very good story anyway (come on, the concept of a ring world was completely lifted from the book Ringworld) so the only thing I can imagine this will have going for it is pretty special effects and action.
Yeah the ring was lifted from Niven's book but the story of the Flood and how Humans fit into that universe (Halo's universe, I mean) is really cool. It's a great story that is helped to be even cooler by the 3 great books that were released.
halo 2....eh... not so much.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I swear to God, if the Halo movie has a single first-person view with him gunning enemies down, I will burn down the theater.
The Halo games have never had a very good story anyway (come on, the concept of a ring world was completely lifted from the book Ringworld) so the only thing I can imagine this will have going for it is pretty special effects and action.
You know, that wouldn't have bothered me as much in Doom if the rest of the movie was even remotely close to the concept of the game. One four minute scene does not compensate for the other hour and a half of mindlessness deviation from the source material.
But then again how fast would it have become boring if they had The Rock simply going through rooms and rooms of bad guys (in legion quantity) and blowing them all away? Most people would rather just load up Doom and do it themselves. Though I confess I am so SICK and TIRED of movies where the Elite Marines (soldier types) get sent in only to be destroyed by their personality flaws, or stupid coincidental equipment failure.
Here are just a few of the stupid things I noticed in Doom:
Flashlights in movies MUST go out when they are most needed.
Baddies can inexplicably move from the ground, and into the ventilation system right above your head within seconds and they always know when you are about to jerk your head and stare in their direction.
Elite Marines when they see 2 bright glowing eyes are trained to stare at them until they are attacked savagely and then all they can do is wail and scream for help rather then fight back.
When marines come to a point where a path converges in 2 directions they have all failed to watch Scooby Doo and so follow standard detective protocols and split into groups that can be more easily isolated and destroyed.
Even with a buddy to watch your back either you will fail to see something behind you grab your buddy, or your buddy will get stalled with something (falling to far behind you and getting lost is a popular director choice) and seal your own doom.
The person in charge of everything NEVER NEVER NEVER has the most common sense. Its always the underdog OR the 2nd in command. Moby Dick doomed us to this formula with Captain Ahab and 1st mate Starbuck.
Ill have more points later.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Ok, what gives? I read through the entire thread and there isn't a single mention of Red Vs. Blue. There's a problem here.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
You're right about the "going room to room killind baddies". I never said that Doom should have been made in to a movie in the first place.
What you are describing about Doom can be said about any movie in the genre. What that genre is is up to interpretation.
Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Ok, what gives? I read through the entire thread and there isn't a single mention of Red Vs. Blue. There's a problem here.
I thought that was a reference to the Matrix, oops.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
Please do tell me how those suck? They are awesome!![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)