PDA

View Full Version : The Assassin's Creed Movie Arrives in 2016!



LatinaC09
04-08-2015, 02:22 PM
:cool:Hey all, I haven't seen any recent threads on this so I decided to make a new one! According to this article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/02/16/the-assassins-creed-movie-has-a-release-date-casts-marion-cotillard/ the AC movie is definitely in the works and has begun production. The release date is December 21, 2016. The author also goes into detail about the possible pros and cons of an AC movie. It seems like the movie could go either way, good or bad with little room for a medium. I'm not really sure I agree fully, it all really just depends.

Now here's a question I wanted to ask you guys about this movie: do you think that it should take place over several historic periods or just one? I'm kind of leaning towards more than one simply for the fact that we will get to see more history (which I always love). On the other hand the movie may be better quality if they only have to concentrate on one specific setting. What do you guys think?

Democrito_71
04-08-2015, 02:51 PM
I prefer if the Movie only visited one setting for each movie. Otherwise it would be quite messy if there were several settings in one single movie imo. For example if New Regency & Ubisoft are basing the movies of the old games settings like the third crusade- middle east, the renaissance Italy plus Colonial america during the American Revolution in one movie alone it would be very confusing story wise, so one setting for each movie is better than several settings in one movie imo. And the movie also need a modern day that's interesting and a story that progress compared to Unity

SixKeys
04-08-2015, 03:12 PM
Just one location and era, for the first movie at least. Sequels are usually the ones that take the show on the road, so to speak.

Sorrosyss
04-08-2015, 03:41 PM
Mmm. I thought it was confirmed that it was set in 15th Century Spain during the Inquisition? Perhaps it was just a rumour, I don't recall.

I just hope they treat the IP with respect. No altering the Brotherhood or Abstergo logos for example. They are too iconic. I never get why some things are changed, often for the worse, from source material in Hollywood. Too many execs making creative decisions I guess.

VestigialLlama4
04-08-2015, 04:25 PM
Well the problem is simply medium. The video game medium (and books) allows for all kinds of complicated lore and backstory that a movie does not allow at all. Even 8 Harry Potter movies misses out a lot of the more interesting elements in the background. So when they make an AC movie they have to choose to make it about 1. Conspiracy Stuff 2. History Stuff 3. First Civ Stuff, 4. MD Stuff.

Ideally what they should go for is make the first AC movie realistic and dial down the craziness (no pieces of Eden and either remove Eagle Vision or make it more subtle). Go back to the Crusades and show us who the Assassins and Templars are, delicately introduce the MD background and pretty much follow the structure of the first game (if not the same plot and characters). Also if they are making it a movie, the Assassins blending in the crowd can't be like how it is in the games, there's no way audiences will follow that.

From the way Fassbender talks, it sounds like he was more interested in the genetic memory concept. That's cool but I don't think that is really the main part of the games.

SixKeys
04-08-2015, 06:25 PM
Eagle Vision could definitely be removed. It's a very game-y concept that doesn't really serve a purpose in a movie.

ze_topazio
04-08-2015, 06:36 PM
Could be easily show in a scene or two, like when they show night and thermal vision and other similar things in movies.

SixKeys
04-08-2015, 06:38 PM
Could be easily show in a scene or two, like when they show night and thermal vision and other similar things in movies.

But then they'd have to explain it ("why does this guy suddenly have heat vision?"), which would take up time that could be used for more important things.

ze_topazio
04-08-2015, 06:44 PM
Shouldn't take more than two minutes to explain that some people have a mysterious special vision.

king-hailz
04-08-2015, 06:59 PM
It should focus on the modern day conspiracy first civ stuff... historical tourism is a hit in video games but I think people will want something more than just history in the movie...

SixKeys
04-08-2015, 07:12 PM
Shouldn't take more than two minutes to explain that some people have a mysterious special vision.

But what would be the purpose of having it in the movie? In the games it's a way to identify and mark enemies, but in a movie such things could be presented much more simply.

waynedavies89
04-08-2015, 07:19 PM
But then they'd have to explain it ("why does this guy suddenly have heat vision?"), which would take up time that could be used for more important things.


They don't have to do all the glowing people stuff. It can be simply explained as heighten sense of awareness. They enter a room and their brain starts assessing the area; exits, friendly, threat and so on.

VestigialLlama4
04-08-2015, 07:22 PM
The main elements that can work for the motion picture are the dramatic, philosophical, ambiguous stuff:
1) The idea of Assassins killing people for the greater good, and that there are some people who are so awful that killing them can benefit society. You can simply make a terrific movie on the Assassins themselves and explore that anarchist outlook. Otherwise audiences will wonder why they are being asked to root for guys who call themselves Assassins, kill people and think they are heroes. That works better in games than the movies.

2) The idea of the Creed itself and how it applies.

Adapting games into movies is doomed to failure because most games are based on movies. Uncharted the Movie is Indiana Jones without Harrison Ford, GTA the Movie is basically, Scarface, Goodfellas, Godfather, The Wire, Heat, Little Odessa, Sopranos and what-have-you. AC at least has some stuff that movies haven't really tackled. Ideally it should work as historical period adventure. The only real problem is that making it about the Crusades and the original Assassins will be hard for producers to get behind since you will have to cast Arab actors as the lead, so they might go with some alternate approaches - like say Fassbender being this Christian Knight who converts to Islam and joins the Assassins, the usual white male lead story.

3) Or ideally, what they should do, is make it a purely MD story. Make it about a guy who gets caught in this Assassin stuff, save the historical bits for special sequences and do it in a weird, dream sequence style. That way you have an audience surrogate who introduces the entire concept, it stays in the realm of possibility like we don't know if he's crazy or not and audiences will not be so disoriented.

ze_topazio
04-08-2015, 07:24 PM
But what would be the purpose of having it in the movie? In the games it's a way to identify and mark enemies, but in a movie such things could be presented much more simply.

Fanservice, it's an important part of the AC lore, wouldn't hurt to include it.

The Assassin reaches the area, zoom of the eyes, blue vision starts, all the guards positions are revealed, possible paths, a cat, the target.

SixKeys
04-08-2015, 07:34 PM
Fanservice, it's an important part of the AC lore, wouldn't hurt to include it.

It really would. The reason video game movies generally fail is because of too much fan service. The people who know the games won't be satisfied with the little fan service they get, and the moviegoing audience will not recognize it as fan service and will just be confused.

"WTF? These historical assassins have some kind of heat vision? How does that work?
-Well, some people have this heightened sense of awareness.
-That's.... random. Is this movie history or science fiction?
-Well, it's kind of complicated. You see, this sixth sense comes from aliens who came before and they created humans as sort of these robot slaves but they became self-aware and.... Where's everybody going?"

Namikaze_17
04-08-2015, 07:43 PM
"WTF? These historical assassins have some kind of heat vision? How does that work?
-Well, some people have this heightened sense of awareness.
-That's.... random. Is this movie history or science fiction?
-Well, it's kind of complicated. You see, this sixth sense comes from aliens who came before and they created humans as sort of these robot slaves but they became self-aware and.... Where's everybody going?"

This sounds like my sister and I when I try to explain AC to her. :p

waynedavies89
04-08-2015, 07:47 PM
It really would. The reason video game movies generally fail is because of too much fan service. The people who know the games won't be satisfied with the little fan service they get, and the moviegoing audience will not recognize it as fan service and will just be confused.

"WTF? These historical assassins have some kind of heat vision? How does that work?
-Well, some people have this heightened sense of awareness.
-That's.... random. Is this movie history or science fiction?
-Well, it's kind of complicated. You see, this sixth sense comes from aliens who came before and they created humans as sort of these robot slaves but they became self-aware and.... Where's everybody going?"



There a 3 stages to explain "Eagle Sense:
1. What is the ability?
2. How did they get it?
3. Where does it come from?

All three can be answered over the cause of the film as the main character learns. You don't need to have big exposition dump in one scene to fully explain everything.

Farlander1991
04-08-2015, 07:48 PM
Well, Eagle Vision is in essence the sixth sense, so if done right, it would be viewed as a representation of such sixth sense which wouldn't need any complex explanation, there are movies that do such things well. Heck, honestly, the way it works in Unity at the beginning of Assassination missions is pretty good visually, we only need a bit of smaller foreshadowing so this kind of thing wouldn't come out of nowhere.

But it's also really easy to **** up.

Bigger problem, IMO, is the fact that it won't be apparently set in the Crusade era, which means that they'll have to explain the whole lore thing of Templars and Assassins surviving as these secret organization instead of, well, introducing them directly.

This also can be done right, of course, but also pretty easy to **** up and transform into exposition dump or something that won't be properly understanded by the part of the audience that hasn't played the series.

VestigialLlama4
04-08-2015, 07:49 PM
It really would. The reason video game movies generally fail is because of too much fan service. The people who know the games won't be satisfied with the little fan service they get, and the moviegoing audience will not recognize it as fan service and will just be confused.

"WTF? These historical assassins have some kind of heat vision? How does that work?
-Well, some people have this heightened sense of awareness.
-That's.... random. Is this movie history or science fiction?
-Well, it's kind of complicated. You see, this sixth sense comes from aliens who came before and they created humans as sort of these robot slaves but they became self-aware and.... Where's everybody going?"

:D

Video game movies should be made for the audience that does not play video games. Ideally they should ask if there is something in AC that is interesting without it being a Parkour game where you kill people like a lunatic? I know people who like AC solely for the history, the "Hey that's Leonardo, wow you're a Pirate" and "those battle scenes in AC3 are great" and all that. They like that without knowing the story or lore. There is something that transcends that, and they should focus on making a movie about that.

Namikaze_17
04-08-2015, 08:02 PM
Bigger problem, IMO, is the fact that it won't be apparently set in the Crusade era, which means that they'll have to explain the whole lore thing of Templars and Assassins surviving as these secret organization instead of, well, introducing them directly.

Imagine an over-the-top five minute exposition before the title even shows. :rolleyes:

VestigialLlama4
04-08-2015, 08:14 PM
Imagine an over-the-top five minute exposition before the title even shows. :rolleyes:

You have to understand that the real problem with an Assassin's Creed movie is the title. Assassin. The problem is that The Assassins are consistently seen as bad guys.

Hilariously, that Prince of Persia movie with Jake Gyllenhall had Ben Kingsley command a bunch of Assassins as drugged-up super-soldiers and they are called Hashashin (even though its pre-Islamic Persia and its a Ubisoft adaptation of a franchise that was selling well at the time). Audiences will also have read Dan Brown's book, Angels and Demons (a bestseller and airport novel) where again you have a hitman who's supposed to be this Medieval Hashashin, he takes drugs, rapes women and kills. Then you have other writers who say the medieval Assassins are ancestors of today's jihadis and the like.

Basically, most audiences will ask "why are we rooting for a pack of terrorist Arab cult." In other words the concept can't be dropped in and dropped out in prologue exposition. AC is deconstructing a particular preconception and audiences will have to know who the Assassins are and understand their philosophy. Most movies also have Templars as sympathetic as well, like in Da Vinci Code or National Treasure, or that Last Crusade movie. So suddenly them being bad guys would need to be explained.

The way the first game did it strikes me best. You initially saw this Assassin kill an innocent man and he's then told that's not the way. Automatically correcting our perspective of them as mindless killers. You also see the Templars at Solomon's Temple which audiences know from Da Vinci Code, in other words quick exposition. The supernatural element with the Apple is kept at the background until the very end. The First Civ doesn't appear in the first game, vaguely they are alluded to and referred to in hacked emails. You only see that in AC2, and I have to say the more chatty the First Civ get, the less scary and impressive they are.

ze_topazio
04-08-2015, 08:42 PM
It really would. The reason video game movies generally fail is because of too much fan service. The people who know the games won't be satisfied with the little fan service they get, and the moviegoing audience will not recognize it as fan service and will just be confused.

"WTF? These historical assassins have some kind of heat vision? How does that work?
-Well, some people have this heightened sense of awareness.
-That's.... random. Is this movie history or science fiction?
-Well, it's kind of complicated. You see, this sixth sense comes from aliens who came before and they created humans as sort of these robot slaves but they became self-aware and.... Where's everybody going?"

I think the reason why most game movies suck is exactly because of how different they are from the source material.

Most of you are suggesting removing everything that makes AC being AC.

Let's remove the first civ because casual viewers wouldn't understand a science fiction element
let's remove the piece of eden because casual viewers wouldn't understand such technology
let's remove the eagle vision because casual viewers wouldn't understand such abilities
let's remove the actual assassinations and instead concentrate on philosophical discussions or else casual viewers wouldn't understand why in a action movie people are killing each other
let's remove the animus, genetic memories and the historical aspect because science fiction is too hardcore for most people

Since we're at it let's remove the hidden blade since such tech is too unrealistic
let's remove the hoods because casual viewers wouldn't understand why an entire group of people uses hoods
actually let's remove the Assassins and Templars because two groups fighting non stop since the stone age is pretty absurd and the reason is actually quite stupid

That's like making an X-Men movie and removing the mutants because it would be too hard to explain that genetic mutations happen in the X-Men world, or removing magic from Harry Potter since explaining that and the magical world would be too hard.

SixKeys
04-08-2015, 09:32 PM
I think the reason why most game movies suck is exactly because of how different they are from the source material.

Most of you are suggesting removing everything that makes AC being AC.

Let's remove the first civ because casual viewers wouldn't understand a science fiction element
let's remove the piece of eden because casual viewers wouldn't understand such technology
let's remove the eagle vision because casual viewers wouldn't understand such abilities
let's remove the actual assassinations and instead concentrate on philosophical discussions or else casual viewers wouldn't understand why in a action movie people are killing each other
let's remove the animus, genetic memories and the historical aspect because science fiction is too hardcore for most people

Since we're at it let's remove the hidden blade since such tech is too unrealistic
let's remove the hoods because casual viewers wouldn't understand why an entire group of people uses hoods
actually let's remove the Assassins and Templars because two groups fighting non stop since the stone age is pretty absurd and the reason is actually quite stupid

That's like making an X-Men movie and removing the mutants because it would be too hard to explain that genetic mutations happen in the X-Men world, or removing magic from Harry Potter since explaining that and the magical world would be too hard.

Have you seen any of Uwe Boll's movies? They are actually quite faithful to the games they're adapted from and they are absolute s***e. He even uses actual game footage in some of them. You can't get much more faithful than that. The problem isn't deviating from the source material, it's failing to recognize that movies and games are two different mediums and what works in one of them won't necessarily work in the other.

There's a rule in publishing that also applies in Hollywood: if you can't describe your book or movie in one sentence, you're not going to sell it. People simply won't listen to your pitch if you can't express the gist of it in one sentence.

Ask yourself: if you had to describe Assassin's Creed in the simplest way possible, how would you describe it?

Think of your target audience. How would you explain AC to your mother or grandfather? Which details would you leave out? Those details that you leave out of your description are elements that could (and possibly should) be discarded when turning it into a movie script.

Here's an example of how I would describe AC's plot in one sentence:

"Throughout the history of mankind, two factions have fought for the fate of humanity: the corrupt Templars who seek total control, and the assassins who seek liberty and justice for all."

Notice all the stuff I left out. No mention of modern day technology, genetic memories, Those Who Came Before, Pieces of Eden, the historical Hashashin, Abstergo, Eagle Vision, the rules of the creed, no shades of grey between "Templars bad, assassins good" etc. etc. That means all that stuff is secondary to the main plot. Everything that's not crucial to the all-important pitch is basically optional: it can either be simplified, replaced or dropped completely. It's harsh, but it's a reality when trying to adapt a 20-hour video game into a 2-hour movie. My suggested pitch clearly bills the movie as a historical adventure, and movie execs and audiences alike would be confused if they went to see what they thought was akin to Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven, and ended up hearing about all these crazy sci-fi concepts like Pieces of Eden.

You say removing all that stuff would be removing everything that makes AC what it is. You may be right. Which is why I haven't been behind this movie 100% ever since it was announced. I don't think they can do the games justice, because I know how Hollywood works. Hollywood is all about simplicity and AC is anything but simple.

Farlander1991
04-08-2015, 10:09 PM
All games, which would include AC as well, start with a single sentence description as well. That's kinda how it works, how you provide the concept. Details become engraved further down the line, and just because something starts simple, doesn't mean it won't get any depth (and, to be fair, AC could REALLY use more simplicity, in the modern day part).

Regarding faithfullness, I think most people view 'being faithful' as 'true to the letter', which, IMO, is not a good way to look at it. Precisely because different mediums are, well, as SixKeys mentioned, different.

I think for an adaptaion to be a good adaptaion it has to be two things - a good piece of work in its medium ,and have this nebulous thing, 'the spirit' of the original. The Lord of the Rings movies, for example, are great on their own, but they also have this spirit of the original, which is what makes it a good adaptation. Yes, there's a lot of changes (and I actually agree with quite a lot of them), some really drastic, but the spirit is there. How to Train Your Dragon - wonderful animated movie (my favourite pretty much), doesn't have anything from the source material except names essentially, but it still carries the spirit (and the writer of the original books thinks like that as well).

Though, on the other hand, one may say that spirit is hard to define. Because it's, well, subjective. On these very forums you'll find that for everyone the spirit of AC is different. Which I guess is true. But the adaptation still has to be a good work on its own, which is also subjective, but at least it's easier to define if something's good based on general perception :p

ze_topazio
04-08-2015, 11:49 PM
Have you seen any of Uwe Boll's movies? They are actually quite faithful to the games they're adapted from and they are absolute s***e. He even uses actual game footage in some of them. You can't get much more faithful than that. The problem isn't deviating from the source material, it's failing to recognize that movies and games are two different mediums and what works in one of them won't necessarily work in the other.

There's a rule in publishing that also applies in Hollywood: if you can't describe your book or movie in one sentence, you're not going to sell it. People simply won't listen to your pitch if you can't express the gist of it in one sentence.

Ask yourself: if you had to describe Assassin's Creed in the simplest way possible, how would you describe it?

Think of your target audience. How would you explain AC to your mother or grandfather? Which details would you leave out? Those details that you leave out of your description are elements that could (and possibly should) be discarded when turning it into a movie script.

Here's an example of how I would describe AC's plot in one sentence:

"Throughout the history of mankind, two factions have fought for the fate of humanity: the corrupt Templars who seek total control, and the assassins who seek liberty and justice for all."

Notice all the stuff I left out. No mention of modern day technology, genetic memories, Those Who Came Before, Pieces of Eden, the historical Hashashin, Abstergo, Eagle Vision, the rules of the creed, no shades of grey between "Templars bad, assassins good" etc. etc. That means all that stuff is secondary to the main plot. Everything that's not crucial to the all-important pitch is basically optional: it can either be simplified, replaced or dropped completely. It's harsh, but it's a reality when trying to adapt a 20-hour video game into a 2-hour movie. My suggested pitch clearly bills the movie as a historical adventure, and movie execs and audiences alike would be confused if they went to see what they thought was akin to Gladiator or Kingdom of Heaven, and ended up hearing about all these crazy sci-fi concepts like Pieces of Eden.

You say removing all that stuff would be removing everything that makes AC what it is. You may be right. Which is why I haven't been behind this movie 100% ever since it was announced. I don't think they can do the games justice, because I know how Hollywood works. Hollywood is all about simplicity and AC is anything but simple.

Never watched any Uwe movie, but since he is described, sometimes, as the worst movie maker of all time perhaps we shouldn't use him as an example, lol

"Two ancient orders with very distinct ideas for the future of humankind fight over the possession of an ancient artifact left behind by a mysterious ancient civilization"

Think of AC1, the first civ was only briefly mentioned and mostly because of the apple of eden, they don't need to go in to detail, that's what sequels are for, I think your average moviegoer can handle a bit of mystery.

I think the comics are a good example of how to make an AC story with ancestors, modern people, first civ and pieces of eden, all in a small story, unlike in the games we don't need to see 20 years of the ancestor life, just the essential, and I think the story of AC1 could be easily summarized in to a movie without sacrificing much, I'm not against removing the modern day btw, they can make the game exclusively in the past, I'm just saying they should keep the core things of the lore like the ancients and pieces of eden.

Also to answer Farlander I'm not saying they should make a frame by frame adaptation of the story, I'm just saying that removing all the particularities of AC leaves you with just another historic epic, which is good, but what's the point of adapting this if it's not going to be like AC at all? one thing is summarizing a story, changing minor characters, combining different events in to one, etc.. another is changing the entire lore by removing all the sci-fi stuff, it would be like removing the ring from Lord of the Rings and give Frodo a different reason to travel to mount doom, yeah it can work but that would make it a very different story.

I would be more in favor of a TV series than a movie btw.

SixKeys
04-09-2015, 01:12 AM
That summary works too. Just as long as the movie that is based on the basic premise stays focused on its subject. In your summary that focus is on the First Civ and the Piece of Eden. That already shifts the focus of the movie from a historical adventure into a sci-fi romp (in the minds of studio executives). Is it your intention to focus on the sci-fi over the historical fiction? Because that's what your pitch sounds like. Which would be fine, but if we're being realistic, the main draw of AC has always been the history and that's missing from your pitch. You'd be selling the movie primarily as science fiction, with maybe a dash of history, and I sincerely doubt that would pull in the crowds, considering how convoluted the modern day plotline is in AC. The movie would sell much better as a historical adventure film with a dash of magic (which, let's face it, the PoEs might as well be). I believe that's what the movie producers will go for, but they will severely simplify and streamline things to make the plot easier to follow. People can't expect every little thing from the games to remain intact, no matter how iconic.

HDinHB
07-29-2015, 10:32 PM
http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/07/29/assassins-creed-movie-director-discusses-heart-and-history-of-the-game

While chatting with Justin Kurzel about his acclaimed version of Macbeth – which hits UK screens on October 2 – we asked him why he thinks Ubisoft's historical action-adventure will make a good movie.

“Because I think there’s so much underneath it,” he explained. “I don’t think it’s your typical shoot-em-up game. I don’t think it’s your typical one-dimensional game. It has a heart and a history to it.

“The whole idea of memories and the whole idea of we are made up of who comes before us and within us we carry the DNA of our ancestors and we have access to those ancestors and they somehow speak to who we are now – that is just an incredibly strong, human kind of curious thing, so I think that there is something there that’s really original and really fresh and it’s no wonder it has 90 million players. There’s got to be something more than just the fun of playing it. There’s definitely a culture to it that people really respond to.”

I really enjoy hearing Fassbender and now Kurzel talk so enthusiastically about making the Assassin's Creed movie. I think that's the big cost of the annual releases--not resources or quality, but the loss of awe and wonder, on both the player and developer sides of the screen.

steveeire
07-29-2015, 11:13 PM
I still don't believe this is gonna happen.