GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by gnomethingy
This hypothetical bg movie sounds like a bad idea to me, for one you could never have many decent actors in one movie couse of the cost and what would happen then? All these nice characters being played by a bunch of fools

But the thing that troubles me is.. you make a game into a movie it starts to reek, it reeks of immediate failure

I mean did ANYONE actually pay money to see tome raider or final fantasy?

If they did, i bet they sat around for hours afterwards saying how wrong it was and how blah blah would never say blah blah blah

I mean you know the drill, If you go see a blah turned into movie... it will only annoy becouse it fell to short of what it could be

Well, not necessarily. Movie plots can be "bent" in a way so they don't follow the game's orginal plot.

For example, on Fanfiction.net I have been browsing around the Baldur's Gate category a lot more than usual. One day, I was cruising along and found another fic that was based on a PCs journey through Faerun. I thought it would be, like, completely focused on the main charactor through the entire story, but I was *quite* wrong. The author not only made it so the world didn't revolve around the PC but also the NPCs, but she also made it so the party would take side of neither the Shadow Thieves or Bodhi to get Imoen back.

I think that if the writers and director have enough creativity as this person did in her fiction, then the movie would be quite successful. Ah, but look at me. I don't have enough creativity for the idea, so I'll just close my mouth.

(P.S. I don't think ANYONE went to see FF...with good reason.)

This hypothetical bg movie sounds like a bad idea to me, for one you could never have many decent actors in one movie couse of the cost and what would happen then? All these nice characters being played by a bunch of fools...

@Gnomethingy, First Rule of Reality: The pay a person gets has absolutely no relationship to the competence of their job performance. Got it? This applies as well to actors, who are paid not according to their quality, but to their perceived popularity by the hierarchy of accountants and managers that rule Hollywood.

So it would be quite easy to line up superb talent for a BG film at a standard union scale, using people that have never been heard from before in all the roles. Been done before, in fact, with other genres. Some of the best known actors and directors over the years got their big break in films made on tiny budgets against the Hollywood system.

On the other hand, at a guess I'd think the most expensive thing for any fantasy film would be its special computerized effects--and that would cost a ton, if it was done in a way that didn't make the viewer laugh at the results. That's been the bane of fantasy films in the past (well, that, and a really good script): creating a believable fantasy environment. I understand the recent Tolkien film did that, though I haven't seen it, and probably won't. (I don't want to wreck the images created in the best theater of all, that of the mind, built over years of reading the trilogy several times.)

Originally posted by Aqua-chan
(P.S. I don't think ANYONE went to see FF...with good reason.)

I went to see it, and it wasn't half as bad as people expected it to be. The key is low expectations. I reviewed the movie over on SYM a while back.

Originally posted by fable
(I don't want to wreck the images created in the best theater of all, that of the mind, built over years of reading the trilogy several times.)

It was very true to the story, and had some really cool fight scenes, I won't spoil it but it involves a certain mine and a certain giant, and im not talking about gandalf on the bridge.

I'm not sure if any of you guys ever saw the live-action movie Rip Van Winkle, but I will tell you that *nobody* went backrupt on special effects on that movie.

And yes, creating a world believable enough to be Fearun and the Forgotten Realms would just be dead-near impossible. I can see the cities and wilderness areas, *possibly* even caves like Firkraags Lair, but when you stack the number of scenes up, well, you'll run out of money long before the movie shoots ten skits.

Totalling it up:
Special Effects
Actors
Backstage Crew
Equipment
Indoor Sets (Irenecus' Lair, stores in Athkatla, De 'Arnise Keep)
Make-up and Costumes
Actor's Trailors and Luxuries (Especially if Jennifer Lopez plays Jaheira...gosh!)

...Ya see? Ouchiwawa.

And yes, creating a world believable enough to be Fearun and the Forgotten Realms would just be dead-near impossible. I can see the cities and wilderness areas, *possibly* even caves like Firkraags Lair, but when you stack the number of scenes up, well, you'll run out of money long before the movie shoots ten skits.

I believe they said the same thing about Lord of the Rings, too. Not that I believe BG2 should be placed on the same pedestal, but with the right finances and ILM doing the FX, it could be done, mostly on a sound stage with blue screen work.

@Aqua-Chan: Excellent choice for Jaheira! Great mental image.

Originally posted by brian0182001


I believe they said the same thing about Lord of the Rings, too. Not that I believe BG2 should be placed on the same pedestal, but with the right finances and ILM doing the FX, it could be done, mostly on a sound stage with blue screen work.

@Aqua-Chan: Excellent choice for Jaheira! Great mental image.

The only reason they threw so much $$$ into lotr is becouse of its existing fan base, it cost about four hundred mil but i dont think thats us dollars.
The cost of the movie reflects the lvl of realism and the cost of lotr was not solely due the special effects, infact they tried to move away from cgi scenes as much as they could, one example is the shire which they really built and left for several months before filiming it so it would have an authentic weathered and aged look

A baldurs gate movie would never get that sort of finance, its existing fanbase is tiny compared to that of lotr and it would actually have to draw in people who didnt know what it was which is very hard, considering the amount of mistrust most people have for the fantasy genre.

If a movie where ever made it would probably end up a half baked affair, btw I though lotr completly gutted the story and book and was basicly turned into typical flashy hollywood garbage. To many things in the movie assumed you had read the book, to many story changes to add unecessary action, it was devoid of any kind of interaction between the characters other than the standerd 'this is what happened, this is what were going to do' lines and basicly I think peter jackson is a talentless sod who is more interested in doing flashy camera swoops across the landscape and altering the story to fit his own ideas of what it should be than actually trying to bring the book to the screen in any way the compliments it

Anyone who disagrees, watch braindead if you still think he has a morsel of talent, good luck to you

I think the changes from the book were really minimal, probably necessary for a film.
I really liked it.
My "mental image" of the lands and characters may remain different, and will be different when I'll read the book again!
But it's a fact, the film is well done as it was possible.

@Fable, I suggest you take a look at it!!

Littiz, not meaning to be an ass but thats the most borish thing I have ever read "But it's a fact, the film is well done as it was possible"

No..

Its a fact, that the scene with the troll is completly wrong

Its a fact, that sam kills a single orc in moria as opposed to knocking out 4+ with a frying pan

Its a fact, that there is no romance scene between aragorn and arwen

Its a fact, that by the time Aragorn reaches boromir, all the orcs have left

Its a fact, that legolas does not carry two daggers

Its a fact, that Elrond didnt command any troops at dagorlad

Its a fact, that Gimli does not try to smash the one ring with his axe at the council

Those my friend, are facts... You may well have an opinion as to how well the movie was done, no different to my opinion as to how badly it was done.

However, for the sake of argument I can say this... The above FACTS are what my opinion is based on, not the simple abridging of the story to bring it to film but rather, the adding of new scenes that are by and large pointless.

That list is most certainly not comprehensive, and it is a list of CHANGES not of cuts, the fact that jackson has removed existing elements from the book to add his own annoys me greatly, does he think the original story not good enough? Then why is he turning it to film?

Very sorry about being off topic here. Sorry if this offends anyone

What!!?!!

Just my opinion on the events you described.


Its a fact, that the scene with the troll is completly wrong.
- I can't truly argue this except that it was done O.K. and didn't vary too much from the books.

Its a fact, that sam kills a single orc in moria as opposed to knocking out 4+ with a frying pan.
- Might be a little wierd for the audience to see him beat-up four goblins and then be pathetic for the rest of the movie.

Its a fact, that there is no romance scene between aragorn and arwen
- There was a romance between them, they just never had physical contact in Fellowship of the Ring. It waited until Return of the King and was only mentioned in non-action/non-dialogue text in Fellowship of the Ring. The audience would of been in the dark about her in the third movie.

Its a fact, that by the time Aragorn reaches boromir, all the orcs have left
- I beleave Aragorn had to fight the Orc Cheftain still.

Its a fact, that legolas does not carry two daggers
- Big wup you wuss

Its a fact, that Elrond didnt command any troops at dagorlad
- I can't think of anything for this one so you win here.

Its a fact, that Gimli does not try to smash the one ring with his axe at the council
- Gives insite into his character without harming the story at all.


Just my two sense. Thanks for listening to my rant.

@ Gnomethingy; the transistion between book and film is always a difficult one. I know someone who won't even see a film if she's already read the book.

I'd never even heard of Peter Jackson before LotR so I can't comment on any of his other movies but he was the director and directors' are creative people and creative peole have MONSTROUS EGOS. Of course he's going to make changes, that movie as I understand it was a life time ambition for him to make and there he is, the guy in the big chair with millions of $$$ to play with and a cast of international stars waiting on his every word. His ego would have swelled to vast proportions and he would have wanted, because he's creative, to make his own mark on the story -- its HIS vision and its bound to be subjective. Anyway, IMO he was fairly faithful to the book in many regards, giving Legolas 2 daggers...not the end of the world. The worst part for me was the Shire which looked like TeleTubbieLand and Aragorn's line at the end, 'Let's hunt some orcs' which made my toes curl. But other than that I thought it was ok for what it was -- a Christmas blockbuster.

Anyway, IMO he was fairly faithful to the book in many regards...

Didn't really have any choice. The Tolkien literary estate, managed by the eldest son of JRR, has strict control over all properties. If they didn't like the script, they could have killed the the film and sat on the book rights for a while longer--not anything that would have bothered them, in particular.

Damn...does that mean the musical version I've been working on won't get made?

Originally posted by gnomethingy
Anyone who disagrees, watch braindead if you still think he has a morsel of talent, good luck to you

I've seen Braindead and it was truly terrible, but I think he did LOTR quite well. Did anyone else note his appearance as the carrot-spewing guy in the inn? That was in reference to Braindead.

Re: What!!?!!

Originally posted by DaringCommander11
Just my opinion on the events you described.


Its a fact, that the scene with the troll is completly wrong.
- I can't truly argue this except that it was done O.K. and didn't vary too much from the books.

Its a fact, that sam kills a single orc in moria as opposed to knocking out 4+ with a frying pan.
- Might be a little wierd for the audience to see him beat-up four goblins and then be pathetic for the rest of the movie.

Its a fact, that there is no romance scene between aragorn and arwen
- There was a romance between them, they just never had physical contact in Fellowship of the Ring. It waited until Return of the King and was only mentioned in non-action/non-dialogue text in Fellowship of the Ring. The audience would of been in the dark about her in the third movie.

Its a fact, that by the time Aragorn reaches boromir, all the orcs have left
- I beleave Aragorn had to fight the Orc Cheftain still.

Its a fact, that legolas does not carry two daggers
- Big wup you wuss

Its a fact, that Elrond didnt command any troops at dagorlad
- I can't think of anything for this one so you win here.

Its a fact, that Gimli does not try to smash the one ring with his axe at the council
- Gives insite into his character without harming the story at all.


Just my two sense. Thanks for listening to my rant.

Aragorn does not fight the orc cheftain, the orc cheftain dies in the second book, eomer kills him
Your right btw, there a romance. Though its a strange thing to pick me up on considering I said there was no romance scene
Ill admit, my comment about legolas was a little anal.. I only mentioned it becouse I couldnt be bothered explaining out the more horrific changes ie Sarumans encounter with gandalf at orthanc, and many others.

If you think trying to poke away at the facts ive listed for not liking the movie will change my opinion your wrong.. dont bother, I dont like movies much to begin with and the lotr movie is in my opinion a sad attempt

This is my last post on that subject, becouse I dont care to try and change the way anyone sees the movie, I only brough it up to illusrate several facts about changing mediums in storytelling, so if anyone responds im going to ingore them.. I think its enough to say I dont like it, others might but thats there thing

As I said before, If you like the movie.. good luck to you

You guys, can we please bump off the LotR clash before we have to move this thread over to SYM? Don't get me wrong, it's a great series. However, this is somewhat off topic. (Look at me! I could be a moderator! )

But, perhaps, it would be a flop. Even with special effects of descent quality and outstanding acting, a Baldur's Gate movie could end up being dumped as a Star Wars/Lord of the Rings wannabe simply because of bad timing. Fantasy movies are falling short now because they're the most interesting, and people have high expectations for them. That would be a problem.

Jennifer Lopez as Jaheira. She's got that venomous kick that would make her great for the part.

Scary thought that just hit me: Britney Spears as Queen Ellesime. Oh jeeze... **shudder**

Anybody remember Billy Bob Thornton? I can see him as a possible Anomen. (I just saw him in Monster's Ball and that dramatic scene with his father just brought the Delryn situation right into my head. )

Okay. A-c, signing off.

*click*

Aquachan- Sorry if I seemed a little bitter but I was. I love that movie and think it was as good as a movie could get without add 3 or four more hours. Also I checked the books and you are right about Aragon not killing the Orc Cheftain. Sorry.

I had never considered Billy Bob for Anomen and I think it would be a laugh. I also agree on Jenifer Lopez for Jaheria.

Personnally I think that Wynoda Ryder (something like that) would actually make a great Nalia, but just my opinion.

*only answering to gnomethingy*

if you prefer so, let's say "it's a fact that I've never seen before a transposition from book to film so well done."

no need to get angry

Originally posted by Littiz
*only answering to gnomethingy*

if you prefer so, let's say "it's a fact that I've never seen before a transposition from book to film so well done."

no need to get angry

Im not angry, I was just in a real "not trying to be an ass but.. im going to be an ass" mood

Originally posted by gnomethingy


Im not angry, I was just in a real "not trying to be an ass but.. im going to be an ass" mood

This is my last post on that subject, becouse I dont care to try and change the way anyone sees the movie, I only brough it up to illusrate several facts about changing mediums in storytelling, so if anyone responds im going to ingore them.. I think its enough to say I dont like it, others might but thats there thing