WOW Movie

[Clonedsheep]

It's about time they start making a movie.
http://www.blizzard.com/press/060509.shtml   

[AtomSmasher]

I'm glad they got a quality production company to make it, Legendary Pictures made Batman begins and the soon to be released Superman returns.  I think they'll have a hard time making a good, quality movie out of WoW, but so far things are looking good.

[Luxury]

I hear the plot is going to be something like this:

http://menino.com.nyud.net:8080/mirror/sound/wow/bracelets.wav

[thebrownshow]

I pretty much despise videogame flicks.  But with the style of WoW, shouldn't it be an animated feature rather than live-action?

[SOAPboy]

I pretty much despise videogame flicks.  But with the style of WoW, shouldn't it be an animated feature rather than live-action?

Agreed, should be CGI.. Just watch some of the blizzard FMVs from the games, they are totally insane

I'm glad they got a quality production company to make it, Legendary Pictures made Batman begins and the soon to be released Superman returns.  I think they'll have a hard time making a good, quality movie out of WoW, but so far things are looking good.

learn about warcraft lore, theres alot to work with

[jbox]

If I keep clicking on my popcorn, will one of the actors in the movie shout out "I shot the sheriff, the deputy, and your wee doggy too!!" 

[AtomSmasher]

learn about warcraft lore, theres alot to work with

Its not about how much or the quality of warcraft lore, its about making a good movie with orcs, dwarfs, and other assorted fantasy creatures.  Its just not easy to do and will take both a great writer and great director to be able to pull it off.

[SOAPboy]

learn about warcraft lore, theres alot to work with

Its not about how much or the quality of warcraft lore, its about making a good movie with orcs, dwarfs, and other assorted fantasy creatures.  Its just not easy to do and will take both a great writer and great director to be able to pull it off.

Have you read the books?

They could litterally just make movies off the books and have to write nothing but a few extra lines of dialog for a few people..

[AtomSmasher]

learn about warcraft lore, theres alot to work with

Its not about how much or the quality of warcraft lore, its about making a good movie with orcs, dwarfs, and other assorted fantasy creatures.  Its just not easy to do and will take both a great writer and great director to be able to pull it off.

Have you read the books?

They could litterally just make movies off the books and have to write nothing but a few extra lines of dialog for a few people..

Have you seen any live action fantasy movie other then lord of the rings?  The vast majority of them suck big time.  The odds of this movie being a really good movie are slim, but so far they are on the right track to pull it off.

[SOAPboy]

learn about warcraft lore, theres alot to work with

Its not about how much or the quality of warcraft lore, its about making a good movie with orcs, dwarfs, and other assorted fantasy creatures.  Its just not easy to do and will take both a great writer and great director to be able to pull it off.

Have you read the books?

They could litterally just make movies off the books and have to write nothing but a few extra lines of dialog for a few people..

Have you seen any live action fantasy movie other then lord of the rings?  The vast majority of them suck big time.  The odds of this movie being a really good movie are slim, but so far they are on the right track to pull it off.

And? So what if the rest havce sucked? The game and lore have huge potential, its getting it on screen.. and if they dont get some retard like uwe bowl or whatever his name is, than i think itll be at least "DECENT".

[AtomSmasher]

And? So what if the rest havce sucked? The game and lore have huge potential, its getting it on screen.. and if they dont get some retard like uwe bowl or whatever his name is, than i think itll be at least "DECENT".

I agree it'll probably be decent and it definately has huge potential, but as I've been saying it won't be easy for them to make it GOOD.

[thebrownshow]

You can have fantastic source material and still end up with a horrible interpretation on screen.  Take Dune, for example.  Widely held as one of the greatest works of science fiction, yet the movie was f'ing terrible.

[Pi]

IMHO there was no way of making a good movie being faithful to the book of Dune. In a way, Lynch perverted the original story, but at the same time, saved the movie making it have a life and style of its own. I think Dune is a good movie, its only problem (for me) is that the book is totally beyond it. Which in the end it's perfectly fine, because you will never have a good translation from book to cinema, with the exception of The Princess Bride. Look how many books have been totally changed and corrupted in the step to the big screen, yet they made wonderful movies: The Shining, Dr. Strangelove... (Sorry if I'm a bit Kubrickesque.) In the end, the source is not what matters, just how you make the movie. Of course, you're ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- if you are a fan of the source and see it changed so so much that you can't cope with it (V for Vendetta, From Hell), no matter if the movie was good or not. And we are all screwed royally if they change the source too much and the movie sucks big time (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). (Again sorry if I'm too Mooresque.)

[thebrownshow]

I'll agree with you if it's a movie where not many people are familiar with the source, but when the entire draw for that movie is based upon the source material you HAVE to be true to the source.  For a movie based on a game or comic book where you've got fanatical legions of fans, it's almost always a losing situation, with a few recent exceptions (Spider-Man, etc.).

[Pi]

Well, if they use already done material, it's usually for marketing purposes, not because they want to use directly material which is already known. I think that cases like Spiderman and X-Men are a matter of luck, rather than being totally true and fair with the original source. Even the so-called "absolutely faithful to the original" LOTR has too many differences to be satisfying.

On the other hand, we have "perversions" which can be of quite good quality, without moving from the superhero/comic translations, I specially liked Hulk, although it was too different from the comics.

The truth is that book and cinema are too much different medias to have any kind of faithful translation without big effort, and companies aren't putting that effort most of the times. We lose. The masses, not knowing much about the source, fall for the marketing trick and still consume any corrupted product. I sadly put myself inside the masses, of course.

On the other hand, cinema to book translations can give nice jewels. Try the novelization of The Abyss (by Orson Scott Card) if you liked the movie.

[Harry Potter]

Films are for visual stimulation. Action *bang* done, next scene.

Books are more for stimulating the imagination. Books you can pick up and put down at will. Read one over a month or so. Ever tried watching a nine hour film in one hit? (Maybe the Harry Potter fanboys/girls will understand this one day  )

I tried it with LOTR trilogy (the extended one) and barely managed to get half way. I can however read a book for hours on and an not get tired.

[shmokes]

There are lots of great movies that were really faithful to the source material.  Shawshank Redemption, Wonder Boys, Princess Bride, Cider House Rules.  Not sure about Green Mile, but it was the same director that did Shawshank so....

Anyway, there are, of course, more far more bad movies made from books than good ones and sometimes they are, indded, bad because they try to be faithful to the source, as in, show every single important scene.  The World According to Garp was one of these. 

On the other hand, sometimes the movie is better than the books.  LOTR is a good example (though many of the major failings of the movie are directly attributable to pointless deviations from the books).  Davinci Code is another.  Actually, I haven't yet seen that movie, of course, but it looks good and the book wasn't really very good.  But when I first heard that the movie was coming I said, "hmm....the book wasn't very good, but it actually could make a really good movie."

And so on . . .

[shmokes]

Oh yeah, and the WOW movie is almost certainly going to be painfully awful.  The books are probably not very good to begin with, but as has been pointed out already, that is of little consequence.  The vast majority of book to movie translations are horrible regardless of the quality of the source.  I'll agree with whoever it was above suggesting that this applies double for anything in the fantasy genre.

[SOAPboy]

Oh yeah, and the WOW movie is almost certainly going to be painfully awful.  The books are probably not very good to begin with, but as has been pointed out already, that is of little consequence.  The vast majority of book to movie translations are horrible regardless of the quality of the source.  I'll agree with whoever it was above suggesting that this applies double for anything in the fantasy genre.

Books are really good actually..

Pick one up, they arnt expensive.

[AtomSmasher]

Davinci Code is another.  Actually, I haven't yet seen that movie, of course, but it looks good and the book wasn't really very good.  But when I first heard that the movie was coming I said, "hmm....the book wasn't very good, but it actually could make a really good movie."

Your the first person I've heard say they didn't like the Davinci Code (not counting those who didn't like it for its views on the church).  I haven't read it, but I did just pick up Angels and Demons which is the prequal to the Davinci Code and everyone I know whos read both said Angels and Demons was a better book.  Regardless, I'm looking forward to the movie, I mean Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, you can't really go wrong with that combination.

[shmokes]

Brown has an obnoxious tendency (at least in DaVinci Code which is all I've read of his) to constantly spell everything out for his reader.  Like the guy who tells a joke and then proceeds to tell you why it was funny, even though you're already laughing and obviously got the joke.  He's also a bit melodramatic some all of the time.

As for the blasphemy, that didn't bother me at all.  I get a kick out of people giving the Catholics, and Christians in general, grief.  My complaints with the book are purely based on its entertainment value (for me).

[thebrownshow]

I read the first four words of your post and got all fired up:

Brown has an obnoxious tendency ...

... then I realized I'm not in the Politics 'n Religion forum and that this post wasn't about me

[shmokes]

That's five words.   

[Luxury]

I've never read Da Da Vinci Code (is it just me, or does that title seem somewhat gangsta, as in "The Vinci Code" on ebonics).  But from what I've heard, it's a good story, but the author really sucks as a writer.  I've heard that from at least 4 people. 

I mean Ron Howard and Tom Hanks, you can't really go wrong with that combination.

i couldn't disagree with you more about that.  Ron Howard is at best a mediocre director.  Yes he does good movies, but they are all so safe and by the book, that they all come off flat to me.  There isn't really anything that stands out in any of his movies, hence - mediocre.  (But I thank god that he brought Arrested Development to the small screen!)
And Tom Hanks!?! Come On!  The guy hasn't been good in a decade.  Here's a little story:  I Netflixed The Terminal, and put it on top of my DVD player.  I have no idea why I rented it, but I did anyways.  ANYways - I finally returned it to Netflix 10 months later after never even opening it from its envelope.  I always said "maybe I'll watch that tonight", but then immediately thought of Mr. Hanks and decided for the better against it.  I would rather watch Alien vs. Predator (which I did unfortunately) than watch the Terminal. 

[JonnyBoy]

IMHO there was no way of making a good movie being faithful to the book of Dune. In a way, Lynch perverted the original story, but at the same time, saved the movie making it have a life and style of its own. I think Dune is a good movie, its only problem (for me) is that the book is totally beyond it. Which in the end it's perfectly fine, because you will never have a good translation from book to cinema, with the exception of The Princess Bride. Look how many books have been totally changed and corrupted in the step to the big screen, yet they made wonderful movies: The Shining, Dr. Strangelove... (Sorry if I'm a bit Kubrickesque.) In the end, the source is not what matters, just how you make the movie. Of course, you're ---fouled up beyond all recognition--- if you are a fan of the source and see it changed so so much that you can't cope with it (V for Vendetta, From Hell), no matter if the movie was good or not. And we are all screwed royally if they change the source too much and the movie sucks big time (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). (Again sorry if I'm too Mooresque.)

Did you see they are making a film out of the Watchmen. I hope they don't mess that up, the graphic novel is incredible.

[AtomSmasher]

And Tom Hanks!?! Come On!  The guy hasn't been good in a decade. 

Lets take a look at movies Tom Hanks did in the past 10 years that I thought were good (or at least enjoyable) movies.
-The Ladykillers (I know a lot of people hated this, but I love the Coen brothers style)
-Catch Me If You Can
-Road to Perdition
-The Green Mile
-Saving Private Ryan

The only ones that were really bad in the past ten years were The Terminal and Cast Away, both of which he did a great job acting in, the stories were just lacking.

[shmokes]

Yeah...cut out Sleepless in Seatle/You've Got Mail (same movie) and Tom Hanks has a practically flawless record, including Castaway and The Terminal, the first of which was good and the second was perfectly enjoyable, if not memorable.  At any rate, he's still probably the best actor in Hollywood.  Ron Howard, though, is merely competent.  He paints by numbers.  But DaVinci code is a paint-by-numbers kinda story.  It'd seriously be tough to mess up.  It'll be good.

[thebrownshow]

Two words, well, a word and a number: Apollo 13.  I could watch that movie every freakin' week.

I think the DaVinci Code has been discussed at length elsewhere, but I think that book was essentially written to be a movie... the chapters were all about movie-scene length.  Seemed to me like a screenplay in novel form when I read it.

[Luxury]

And Tom Hanks!?! Come On!  The guy hasn't been good in a decade.

Lets take a look at movies Tom Hanks did in the past 10 years that I thought were good (or at least enjoyable) movies.
-The Ladykillers (I know a lot of people hated this, but I love the Coen brothers style)
-Catch Me If You Can
-Road to Perdition
-The Green Mile
-Saving Private Ryan

I said that HE hasn't been good in a decade - not his movies.  Those are some better than average movies you listed.  But in every one of those instances above I think another actor would have made a better movie with the exception of Catch Me If You Can.  He did seem a natural for that one. (And I also enjoyed Ladykillers, but it was definately not the Coens best).  He was good in Apollo13, but I must confess that I feel that that that was another by-the-numbers Howard movie that was good at what it set out to do but nothing more. 

But boy has this thread gone off track.  So to bring it back full circle - Tom Hanks should play a Dwarf in the WoW movie!  He's got the nose for it! 

[Pi]

Books are more for stimulating the imagination. Books you can pick up and put down at will. Read one over a month or so. Ever tried watching a nine hour film in one hit? (Maybe the Harry Potter fanboys/girls will understand this one day  )

I tried it with LOTR trilogy (the extended one) and barely managed to get half way. I can however read a book for hours on and an not get tired.

Not so long ago I watched the LOTR Trilogy (extended versions) in a bit less than 12 hours.

Hmmmmm... there are so many things in this thread I'd like to comment. The Da Vinci Code, mediocre writer doing a mediocre book with a good story. Ron Howard? I agree, he likes to do the easy, safe stuff for the quick tear. Look how he caramelized (sweetened) all the misery in A Beautiful Mind. The true story is much much darker and hard.

Sleepless in Seattle is still one of my favorite romantic movies. I don't know what's the thing with Tom Hanks, everytime people mentions him, it's to turn him down or something. It's not a great actor, but when he does it well, helps a lot in the movie. And he has some kind of instinct to (almost all the time) pick up good projects like Road To Perdition and The Green Mile. I liked him in Cast Away and Saving Private Ryan too. I'm glad he wasn't in Shawshank Redemption, I think Tim Robbins absolutely nailed the character there. Definitely one of the *best* movies ever.

About the Watchmen, it's my favourite graphic novel, ever. That's all. Anything they will do in the movie will be scrutinized extensively by myself and I'm going to be a very cruel critic. In any case, if they make anything decent, I'll be satisfied. The movie will never be as good, simply put. I've heard they're by the 12th draft. Come on, if you can't do that movie *decently*, you don't deserve to be working in anything related to the cinema, including sowing corn.

And about WOW.... I think I'll pass, as much as I passed Alone In The Dark and Doom. AITD was awful and so totally beyond the game it was unbelievable, and I've heard Doom is not much better... Gotta get it to watch it, you need to learn about things if you want to talk about them.

We need another thread mentioning absolutely awful movies, be them original or based on material. I'm gonna name Modern Vampires several times...

[AtomSmasher]

Since this thread seems to also be about the Davinci Code, I'll post this here.  They did a screening for critics last night, and the reviews so far are horrible.

"Some members of the 2000 critics in the audience even broke into stifled laughs at the movies key moment.
"At the high point, there was laughter among the journalists. Not loud laughs, but a snicker and I think that says it all," said Gerson Da Cunha from The Times of India.
"People were confused, there was no applause, just silence," said Margherita Ferrandino from the Italian television Rai 3.
"It was really disappointing. The dialogue was cheesy. The acting wasn't too bad, but the film is not as good as the book," added Lina Hamchaoui, from British radio IRN."

and while rottentomatoes.com only has a few reviews so far, all of them are bad reviews.  Very disappointing, I was planning on seeing it this weekend, but now I probably won't.

[Pi]

What?!?!? A movie based in a book, which turns out to be crap? Unbelievable!!!!!!! </sarcasm>

[Dartful Dodger]

Tom Hanks was good in Bosom Buddies.  He went down hill after that.

[sez]

Tom Hanks was good in Bosom Buddies.  He went down hill after that.

The Money Pit.  Nuff said.

[Pi]

The Money Pit is still one of my fav 80's movies, with or without Tom Hanks. Godunov was *brilliant* and some of the workers... Priceless. Hanks and Long were good, but the rest were awesome. Other 80's comedies I love: Trading Places, Ghostbusters, A Fish Called Wanda, Coming to America, and Big (again with Hanks). I can watch them all again and again.

[thebrownshow]

Other 80's comedies I love: Trading Places, Ghostbusters, A Fish Called Wanda, Coming to America, and Big (again with Hanks). I can watch them all again and again.

Next to Caddyshack, Ghostbusters is one of the funniest movies ever made.  Hands down.