Fabricant451

Video Games: The General Discussion & Community Thread Number Two

Stray always seemed like a game that started and stopped with the pitch of "you play as a cat!" and that appealed to a certain group of people who really like cats but then it's like how do you make that interesting and the answer always came back to "but you play as a cat!"

This is based solely on second hand information but literally no one I've talked to who has played it has been able to sell me on it without going "well I like cats and you play as a cat!"

What shows/movies are you watching?

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>
Since we both posted about that movie in this thread. I'll assume you're in on the gag, and already realize that multiple movies had used the multiverse shtick this year.

@SleepingSilence

Damn I knew I should've said Beavis and Butthead Do the Universe. Foiled by my own pretentiousness

To avoid arguing against the same fallacious 'argumentum ad populum' that I already know won't stay consistent. (Since no one universally believes "well this is popular, well this is profitable, so it can't be criticized/poor in quality" once its something *you* don't like.)

I wouldn't claim all studios are the same. But some don't even seem to care about making money, nor critical and audience reception. (And not only those "we'll get a tax break, if we fail" kind of movies/scam projects.)

Though Illumination Entertainment's goal is obvious from the movies they make. And the reception of their movies (looking at places like IMBD) is on a downward trend. So since it's their studio making the hypothetical movie we were discussing. I want to know if you think they'd actually make a good Legend Of Zelda adaption? Or is the argument that they'd make a profitable movie?

I'm gonna let you in on a little secret: I've never even fuckin' seen an Illumination movie, I just know of them because Minions are unfortunately a thing and Minions 2 was a meme but also a profitable one. That said, would they be my first choice? No, but my first choice would likely be a 2D animation studio because I prefer it, or at least something more visually creative like Into the Spiderverse. Illumination movies are generally safe which is fine if a little uninspired and it makes sense why a company as notoriously protective of its IP would go with them.

I can't make a qualitative statement on Illumination movies but I don't see why they couldn't make a good Legend of Zelda adaptation because as a studio they clearly have talented animators. I think the Mario movie will be fine and I have no reason to think their hypothetical Zelda movie would be anything less than that. Whether or not that translates to good is up to the individual. It is undeniable they'd make a profitable one and something tells me that that was what motivated Nintendo to work with them on Mario.

So yes I think they could make a good Zelda adaptation but I would prefer any other studio. I just like to give things a fair shake even if I acknowledge that some decisions from studios are made with not the best intentions for quality.

It's almost cliché to point out that Hollywood has no original ideas, and only continues to abuse the same trends. So yeah, I'm not exactly alone in feeling burnt out.

But, I'm human too. John Wick and Spiderverse still have my interest as well. I'm just not expecting much out of them.

And aside from a few long-standing creatives like Christopher Nolan creating Oppenheimer, with a star-studded cast. I don't think I've even heard of most of those movies. (And I'd wager the same is true for most people in general.) Since its seems more and more movies come out with little fanfare. Maybe because fewer people are watching online ads?

It's because, and this is surely going to add to the cynicism, with more and more studios being owned by bigger companies, they will spend assloads of money to make sure that tentpole and franchise pictures get engagement. Social media clicks, trailer views, ads during sporting events. Ant-Man is out in like four weeks and like two weeks after it comes out the machine will turn to Guardians of the Galaxy 3. It's less that movies come out with little fanfare and more that studios will bet on a sure thing. Horror movies cost less (generally) to make and so can spend more on advertising. This is why most times when people see the Best Picture nominees it's like "I have heard of two of these movies what the fuck?".

The deeper problem is that franchise movies will box out smaller movies, especially if you live in a smaller town. It is not uncommon for a movie theater to have like nothing but Marvel movies all day and then like three screenings of something else at like 10 pm. And with the rise of streaming services, studios are also trying their hand at 'limited release then immediately to streaming' but that's only serving to make customers not see the movies period because to most normal people 'streaming service' starts with Netflix and stops with maybe Amazon Prime.

I love movies I just kinda hate the system that produces them. But I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where I can see the big dumb blockbusters on a big dumb screen and still have a theater where they show the quality shit that makes me remember why I studied the fucking things in the first place.

All I'm saying, as an admitted cynic, while I'd imagine the quantity has only increased for movies and shows alike. (And perhaps it's not unique for Hollywood that there's more bad products, than good ones.) The decreasing tolerance for (and ability to engage with) basic criticism, is at an all time low on the internet. (But this is more obnoxious in the gaming space. So I'll leave it at that.)

Believe me I've been the film cynic. But I also got real tired and exhausted with the poor state of film criticism/analysis and media literacy on the internet and social media that I basically turned into a debate lord over fuckin films for a while (and still kinda do but believe me I used to be worse) because I care a lot that it pained me to have people start trying to objectively state when movies were bad or good or shit like that.

And like I don't care if people don't like a movie (even if sometimes I get aggro but hey who doesn't defend the things they love...other than sane people) but I also want to stress to people that it's not all bad. There are good movies out there!

Point being, I'm sure you would not be the only one using The Minions Movie of all things to defend the idea of another video game movie adaption being produced. But for me, that only adds on to this feeling.

I think video game adaptations in general are kinda dumb even if I liked those Sonic movies especially because way too many western games are still chasing this weird 'video games as cinematic experience' high where like obviously the first episode of The Last of Us will be well received, the game was basically 50 percent watching it anyway!

Video Games: The General Discussion & Community Thread Number Two

That is partially true. But things that stick to a winning script also tend to do better than things that twist in the winds whichever direction they may blow. Game of Thrones and the prequels. The Witcher Seasons 1 & 2 compared to that new one that's flailing. Peter Jackson's LOTR compared to the Rings of Power. Watchmen The Movie compared to Watchmen the sequel tv series.

But even so I'm not arguing what is most likely. It is quite likely they will shit the bed and do exactly that. Cast for famous names and agendas. I'm arguing what would produce the best product. The best representation of the thing they're trying to build off of.

@BangoSkank

Both Watchmen adaptations were bad but they were bad for different ways. Peter Jackson did LOTR and then he also did The Hobbit. Also the LOTR movies weren't a 1:1 adaptation because a good adaptation uses the source material as a bible not an instruction manual. What do you mean cast for agendas? No one in the Mario movie is cast for an agenda other than the agenda of making even more money than a movie called 'The Super Mario Brothers Movie' is already going to make.

Popularity is not quality.

Didn't make that statement. But name recognition helps make money.

Money good because studios want money.

WoW is an immensely popular game but it is unlikely to make lists of greatest masterpieces of all time. Fortnite is incredibly popular but it's not going to be on a lot of lists of best games of the 2010s/2020s.

World of Warcraft is absolutely already on the list of greatest games of all time it was a groundbreaking, landmark game. Fortnite will probably have a sizeable entry as well. Regardless of WoW's current state, it is still a popular game whose influence is such that it is still the top of an entire genre of games. It is the standard bearer.

Cumberbatch as The Grinch is a great pick. He's got the weird voice and does great faces and impressions. He can work great as just a voice or in costume or via CGI.

Jack Black is a pretty decent Bowser if Bowser is going to have a voice and from what I've heard he's neigh impossible to pick out as Jack Black.

Chris Evans was a terrible pick for Buzz Lightyear instead of Tim Allen and the movie suffered for it, among other things.

The Lightyear movie was fine and it wouldn't have made sense for Tim Allen to do it because it's not the same character. And if you heard Jack Black and Bowser from the movie they would sound similar because all Jack Black is doing, likely with the help of movie magic, is talking in a slightly deeper register.

People in general acknowledge this. It's why often times someone can tell you "we cast X as Y" and you can immediately say "oh my god yes. Fuck he/she was born to play that role" or "whaaaaaaaat? They cast whoooooo? What were they thinking?"

It is why you referred to "stunt casting" because some casting is clearly stunt casting.

There is not a single actor that has been cast that I have thought "Wow they were 100 percent perfect for the role" and in many cases, including the ones you're about to list, the role became them not the other way around. Hugh Jackman was not a great pick for Wolverine at first and neither was Heath Ledger as Joker (seriously, literally everyone thought it was bad) and then the movie came out and people were like "Oh hey wow they did pretty good" because an actor can convince you that they were right for the part. That's why they're actors.

Also I've been talking about voice acting.

Examples below, clearly just smack yourself in the face great casting.

Consider:

Henry Cavil as Superman / Geralt
Gal Gadot as Wonderwoman
Chadwick Boseman as Black Panther
Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool
Halle Berry as Storm
Jon Bernthal as The Punisher
Hugh Jackman as Wolverine
Patrick Stewart as Professor X
Robert Downey Jr. as Ironman (at the time a has been)
Chris Evans as Captain America (at the time a relative unknown)
Benedict Cumberbatch as Dr. Strange
Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn
Chris Hemsworth as Thor (at the time an unknown)
Chris Pratt as Starlord (at the time "that fat guy from Not The Office")
Robin Williams as Genie in Aladdin
Heath Ledger as Joker (at the time a teen heart throb)
Joaquin Phoenix as Joker

I mean fuck, Daniel Day MOTHERFUCKING Lewis as Abraham Lincoln/Butcher Bill

Great castings.

And yet, every single character has been played by other people (and better, in almost every case) and in some cases they are the worst person who has played them. Also you're putting live action and voice acting together here. Also Daniel Day Lewis could play anyone and be perfect for it he's Daniel Day Lewis.

But hey.
Daisy Ridley would probably make a good Wonderwoman. People loved her in Star Wars right? Right?
Kevin Hart is very popular right now, make him New T'Challa
Doja Cat could be the new Storm, maybe she can do a song on the show.
Daniel Kaluyaa was great in NOPE have him play Professor X
Dune did well right? Let's have Timothee Chalamet play Superman

There are objectively and obviously better and worse castings.

Why couldn't Kevin Hart voice T'Challa. Why couldn't Daisy voice Wonder Woman? Why couldn't any of these people voice those characters?

If Kristin Stewart voices The Joker she's gonna be worse than Willem Dafoe.

How do you know? She could be good.

In the Legend of Zelda show/movie

If Joe Pesci voices Link you know he's worse than Timothee Chalamet
If Taylor Swift voices Zelda you know she's better than Viola Davis
If Eddie Murphy voices Epona you're probably actually watching Shrek 5

Timothee Chalamet and Viola Davis in anything would be better than Taylor Swift and Joe Pesci, especially Joe Pesci of these days.

Pharrell Williams doesn't fit musically into Legend of Zelda, neither does Beyoncé, neither does Ozzy Osborne, neither do The Beatles, neither does any song from Guardians of the Galaxy

And yet, the composer for the Mario movie is literally working with Koji Kondo, the composer of the Mario games (and also the Zelda games) so literally all this chicken little hypotheticals are based on nothing other than Pharell doing some song work on the Despicable Me movies. Not even the Minions movies. If the Mario movie is going to have a licensed song it's going to be in the end credits which is like the most nothing thing ever.

There is no reason to think that a Zelda movie or indeed the Mario movie would be like a movie from 2013 especially when the studio is working so closely with the parent company.

Bottom line: Cast people who fit the character. Don't reimagine the character folks already love because you want to cast the Billboard Top 10 and the tabloids Top Sexiest Men and Women of 2022 or for any other similarly stupid ass reasons.

This doesn't happen.

What shows/movies are you watching?

Going to bat for Multiverse of Madness are we? Man, you'll argue contrarian for just about anything, won't ya?

@SleepingSilence

Except I'm not going to bat for Multiverse of Madness. I'm going to bat for Everything Everywhere All At Once.

That's nice. But I want good movies.

And whatever one considers "well received", doesn't exactly make it good, nor worth the multi-millions that it cost to produce.

Audiences loved Minions 2. So did the box office. Which one do you think a studio cares about when weighing the worth of what it costs to produce. I'm sure the critical and audience reception (both generally positive) is what they care about and not the fact that it was the fifth highest grossing movie of 2022 and almost made a billion dollars on an 80 million budget.

Yes, I alone think this.

And the way you described how they'd make the movie (by making a few random references with '''an elf''' guy) already sounds terrible enough. Though I'd bet all the money imaginable, that it wouldn't even be *that* well versed in the end product.

I said the elf part because that's how Link and the Hylians have been described and why they have pointy ears. Because they are elf-like. And if you show anyone who doesn't know anything about Zelda a picture of Link they will call him an elf. Because he has elf ears. Because they're elf-like. The original game had its scenario writer and director inspired by Tolkein. For all intents and purposes, Link is an elf and calling him a Hylian in the movie won't change that everyone will just go "oh he's an elf guy".

@Fabricant451 What fun new movies are you looking forward to this year? John Wick 4, Trolls 3, Insidious 5, Spiderman 2, Another f*cking internet found footage movie, The Nun 2, The Meg 2, Insert every marvel and DC movie here, Mission Impossible, Hunger Games, Indiana Jones, Transformers...(I could keep going.)

But more seriously, is there anything you're actually expecting to be of excellent quality?

I get that you're trying to make a statement on movies not being fun or new because sequels but unironically yes I am looking forward to John Wick 4, Mission Impossible 7, and at least one Marvel movie and it's not the one that's out next month or the one after that and also Spiderverse 2. I don't even like any of the other franchises you mentioned other than I like two Indiana Jones movie but don't really care to see a fifth one. You also forgot Fast and Furious 10.

But to answer the second part, I think Mission Impossible is the best present American action franchise so I fully expect that 7 to be just as great as 4, 5, and 6 have been. John Wick is reliably enjoyable. I'd be shocked if I give any MCU movie over 3/5 other than the one I am hyped for for personal reasons, but a 3/5 movie is totally watchable.

As for what I think to be of excellent quality, other than Mission Impossible 7 I can list a few, sure.

-Oppenheimer
-Beau is Afraid
-Next Goal Wins
-Dune Part 2
-Killers of the Flower Moon
-Barbie
-Chevalier
-Polite Society (admittedly the trailer made me less optimistic but eh)
-Pain Hustlers
-Creed 3
-Asteroid City
-Inside
-Havoc
-Finestkind
-The Killer

The thing is it's hard to judge upcoming movies so early in the year because apart from the franchise stuff that you mentioned, which studios obviously put the focus on because money makes things spin, most stuff kinda just comes out with little fanfare other than word of mouth. Half the stuff I listed is on there because I like the director (Wes Anderson, David Fincher, Greta Gerwig, Ari Aster, Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese) and they have a higher chance of putting out something I continue to like. But my favorite movies of any given year are never the big blockbuster stuff, I just enjoy a popcorn movie. I can watch something like Broker or Red Rocket at home and be fine but a movie like Avatar 2 or, yes, Multiverse of Madness (which was textbook mehhhh) are enhanced by the theater experience. I generally try to see smaller movies in theaters too but that's getting harder and harder these days for reasons both personal and because my theater doesn't have as many screens anymore and so prioritize the money makers but that's a whole other conversation.

I don't think franchise movies are bad. In some cases I think they can still be genuinely great (like Mission Impossible). I am well aware that this year has an abundance of franchise movies but that's what happens when you have delays and such finally catching up. Ideally the fucking drought that was last year's theatrical releases leading to fucking Top Gun being in theaters for like 9 months will convince studios to put shit out. Either way, I doubt I'll even watch any of the DC movies in theaters because who gives a fuck now that James Gunn is trying to salvage it for like the third time.

Video Games: The General Discussion & Community Thread Number Two

You don't cast Ron Perlman as Link. You don't cast Christopher Walken as Zelda. I would generally not want to see Famous Actor/Personality/Musician cast unless it was just a virtually perfect fit. I don't want Beyonce Zelda because that would be Beyoncé, not Zelda. I wouldn't even want someone in her level of celebrity in the film because regardless of the role it would be a distraction. Same with Chris Pratt or Chris Hemsworth. Don't cast them as Gorons or Gannondorf or whatever. Just don't cast them.

@BangoSkank

The reality of movies is that you need to sell to an audience and despite what people on the internet think, movies and shows based on source material are not made to sell things solely to that audience because that is not how money is made (and also they have every reason to believe that the people who complain the loudest will watch it anyway). This is why animated movies from studios and even Ghibli dubs cast actors that normies have heard of. This is why Chris Pratt is Mario and Jack Black is Bowser and this is why Sandra Bullock was in the Minions movie and why Benedict Cumberbatch was the Grinch and why Chris Evans was fuckin Buzz Lightyear. The only difference between a movie and a series is that a series is more likely to cast voice actors and not celebrities doing voice work, but even still in a movie you're going to have to expect a celebrity cast because that's how the business works.

But obviously they're not going to do whatever hypothetical stunt casting that people say. They're not stupid but also if someone can't get past a celebrity actor in a voice performance then that's moreso on the individual. The only difference between casting, say, Daisy Ridley as Zelda or Emily O'Brien is that most people have heard of who Daisy Ridley is. No one should even assume 'Beyonce as Zelda' both because she's not exactly the first choice in most movies considering her blatant lack of a wide filmography and because there are way more obvious celebrities that I have to wonder why the first choice wouldn't be Taylor Swift.

Video game movies are not hard to make anymore.

Anyway, One Piece Odyssey is pretty good

Video Games: The General Discussion & Community Thread Number Two

Now with Beyoncé as Zelda. And all new music by Pharrell Williams!

@SleepingSilence

Careful, your mask is slipping

Video Games: The General Discussion & Community Thread Number Two

=
<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

*Too complicated and convoluted⁠ — for Hollywood. Especially from the folks that made the Minion/Dr.Seuss movies.

@SleepingSilence

What are you talking about, one of the most acclaimed movies of the last year involved multiverse and had rules and explained itself without any complication or convolutions while also telling a story that resonated with people. Hollywood is no stranger to complicated movies, and your opinion on the Minions aside those movies are still well received. But even so, nothing in a Zelda game is complicated or convoluted and the structure of them is basically fodder for an easily told story anyway, you'd just cut it down from like 12 dungeons to like four which they did with BOTW anyway.

The idea that each game could be just as easily adapted as the other, is something I can't agree with. Especially because the quality of the Legend Of Zelda games tend to go beyond the bare bones that Hollywood would imitate.

I know you have some weird bone to pick with Hollywood but any given Zelda game could easily become a movie. And they wouldn't even have to copy the story of any of the games because all they would need to do to have an accurate to the source material is an elfy dude in green named Link, a princess named Zelda who may or may not get captured, and a bad dude named Ganondorf who may or may not turn into a pig monster at the end of the movie named Ganon. Link has to use a sword and arrows. Mention the triforce. Zelda uses light arrows at the end. Throw in a mid section of gathering shit to make the triforce of courage or break the seal on the castle and bam, you've got a two hour movie. Probably even an hour forty five if you're good about it.

Just because you think Hollywood is some monolithic thing producing mid or bad content doesn't make it so and that just says you're not seeking out movies other than blockbusterinos.

But maybe Link's Awakening could have an Oldboy-style "reinterpretation", since Hollywood's so used to producing the "and it was all a dream" cliché. Though I'm trying to imagine how fucking awful a Majora’s Mask movie would be.

Hollywood doesn't even do "it was all a dream" stuff anymore that shit went out of style years ago. Also a Majora's Mask movie would be easy to do, time travel is not a new concept in movies nor are time loops. You should really give movies more credit because nothing suggests a Zelda movie couldn't work other than you automatically assuming the worst because one of the top animation studios who Nintendo has already put their faith in and is guaranteed to make bank and likely produce a solid 3/5 movie about a plumber with no real personality outside of loving to stomp on turtles is maybe considering making a movie based on a video game series that a 1985 movie already basically has a version of anyway starring Tom Cruise and directed by Ridley Scott

What shows/movies are you watching?

<Snipped quote by Fabricant451>

I checked it a few days ago and the show was resting at 10% on Rotten Tomatoes. By the time I woke up the next day it dropped to 7% audience rating. Literally any place you look (Metacritic, IMDb, Google User reviews, etc.) there isn't a lick of goodwill towards it.

@Kuro

I gave it the benefit of the doubt when all there was to go on were character designs. But like within three minutes into the first episode I was regretting even trying to give it a fair shake. It is so bad and worse it thinks it's being clever with constant wink and nods to tropes and references but none of them work at all. It's like those "And then Deadpool walks in!" Reddit posts except written by Twitter.

What shows/movies are you watching?

Velma is so bad that every side of the culture socio-political spectrum can hate it for different but also valid reasons. Thanks, Velma, for bringing people together to make fun of your genuine awfulness.

Video Games: The General Discussion & Community Thread Number Two

The lore in any given Zelda game is hardly complicated or convoluted at all, it only becomes so when people try to do timeline bullshit. You could easily make any given Zelda game into the foundation for a movie because they all follow the same basic premise of normal dude chosen by the gods goes on a quest to defeat the bad guy and save the princess.

Anyway.

I finished God of War: Ragnarok and I don't think they should make more of these games both because of the way the story ends and also because it and 2018 are just not very good as action games because of their slavish devotion to their own cinematic aesthetic. It's a game that overstays its welcome and suffers the same problems as 2018 only worse because it actually feels like padded length at multiple points.