PDA

View Full Version : How to not make the AC movie suck - Advice from the fans



EmbodyingSeven5
09-13-2015, 12:06 AM
I made this thread here to discuss what we want and don't want in the AC movie. Since AC has been through so many time periods and protagonists the AC fanbase is pretty diverse when it comes to what they like about AC. I made this thread purely to get your opinion and share my own on what I want in the AC film.

1.For starters I really hope the film doesn't start off by dumping buckets of exposition off on the movie goer. Draw the audience into the film through mystery and finding out exactly what the hell is going on. This is what I hope the modern day element of the film captures. Dumping exposition doesn't make someone who is new to the AC series suddenly care. Throw them into the world like the first AC did for us.

2. Have interesting villains ( who preferably aren't labeled as Templars right away). I personally don't mind if the Templars are displayed as black and white or in shades of grey. Just make them fun and interesting. I enjoy the characters regardless. I loved AC 2s Templars just as much as I loved AC 3s even though they were vastly different. Its down to the film creators on how they want to display the Templars.

3.Make the tone interesting and engaging. This one is very controversial, since many AC fans love one game way more than another in the franchise. Each AC had varying tones. The first AC had a more dark and dead serious tone, While AC 2 had a more lighthearted "Adventure film with some dark elements and themes." Depends on what you like. AC 3 and 4 also had different degrees of tone. This one really comes down to preference.

4. Have a likeable protagonist,(but don't copy/paste another Assassin.) Have him be charismatic, clumsy, insecure, rude, polite, arrogant etc. Have this protagonists personality shine through and be a little different.

5. Bring back a strong MD and have it push the movie forward. I'm talking a well done WTF moment, mystery, and an interesting MD protag who reflects his ancestor in some way.

Thoughts?

Farlander1991
09-13-2015, 12:14 AM
1.For starters I really hope the film doesn't start off by dumping buckets of exposition off on the movie goer. Draw the audience into the film through mystery and finding out exactly what the hell is going on. This is what I hope the modern day element of the film captures. Dumping exposition doesn't make someone who is new to the AC series suddenly care. Throw them into the world like the first AC did for us.

Doing what the first AC does IS dumping buckets of exposition, as that's precisely how the first AC starts :rolleyes:


5. Bring back a strong MD and have it push the movie forward. I'm talking a well done WTF moment, mystery, and an interesting MD protag who reflects his ancestor in some way.

Disagree with the WTF moment. No WTF moments please. And mystery should be toned down (not necessarily NOT be there, but there shouldn't be a lot of it). Like, it might feel cool for a while, but if the AC Desmond's Saga showed anything is that having WTF moments for the sake of WTF moments won't lead to anything good, and lots of mystery can be too much to resolve in a satisfying way.

EmbodyingSeven5
09-13-2015, 12:25 AM
Doing what the first AC does IS dumping buckets of exposition, as that's precisely how the first AC starts :rolleyes:

You were thrown into the role of desmond in the Animus. You wake up and two scientist explain what the animus is before throwing Desmond back into the Animus. Not what I would call "Exposition being dumped onto you". AC has a deep history and lore. Reciting a great deal of it from the beginning would not be a good way to introduce the audience and a new audience at that into the film. Keep the audience guessing and don't give them all the answers. Part of the fun of going into a franchise for the first time.


Disagree with the WTF moment. No WTF moments please. And mystery should be toned down (not necessarily NOT be there, but there shouldn't be a lot of it). Like, it might feel cool for a while, but if the AC Desmond's Saga showed anything is that having WTF moments for the sake of WTF moments won't lead to anything good, and lots of mystery can be too much to resolve in a satisfying way.

I'm talking mystery in terms of what exactly the people at Abstergo are looking for and why they are doing what their doing. The introduction of the bleeding effect in the film could be interesting too. I loved the well crafted WTF moments of AC-AC R. I wasn't telling them to "force it in". I'm asking for a well crafted one that adds to the climax. All the mystery should be resolved by the end of the film and make sense, don't get me wrong.

SixKeys
09-13-2015, 03:30 AM
You were thrown into the role of desmond in the Animus. You wake up and two scientist explain what the animus is before throwing Desmond back into the Animus. Not what I would call "Exposition being dumped onto you". AC has a deep history and lore. Reciting a great deal of it from the beginning would not be a good way to introduce the audience and a new audience at that into the film.

That scene is the very definition of exposition dump. Desmond conveniently tells the audience everything they need to know in the introductory scene: "You guys kidnapped me and strapped me into this machine! I'm a bartender, not an assassin! Well, maybe I used to be, but not anymore. Anyway, who are you people and what does this machine do?" Followed by Vidic explaining exactly what the Animus is, how it works, why Desmond is strapped to it and what Abstergo wants. ALL of that is exposition, told within the first 5 minutes.

VestigialLlama4
09-13-2015, 05:15 AM
I made this thread here to discuss what we want and don't want in the AC movie. Since AC has been through so many time periods and protagonists the AC fanbase is pretty diverse when it comes to what they like about AC. I made this thread purely to get your opinion and share my own on what I want in the AC film.

What I really don't want is an AC movie. I don't think the approach they are taking is smart in the least.


1.For starters I really hope the film doesn't start off by dumping buckets of exposition off on the movie goer. Draw the audience into the film through mystery and finding out exactly what the hell is going on. This is what I hope the modern day element of the film captures. Dumping exposition doesn't make someone who is new to the AC series suddenly care. Throw them into the world like the first AC did for us.

Well bear in mind videogames and movies are entirely different mediums. A video game can throw you into its arcane mysteries right away because it can potentially explain all the lore in the course of the 10+ hours it takes to finish it. But a movie has to do all that in 2hrs+-. Take Inception, a movie with broad similarities to AC in that its about entering people's minds by strapping them into a machine, it managed to explain its complicated concept well in the first twenty minutes or so. Of course the rest of the movie is bogged down by people talking all the time about which dream and whose dream they're going in.


2. Have interesting villains ( who preferably aren't labeled as Templars right away). I personally don't mind if the Templars are displayed as black and white or in shades of grey.

The general rule in movies with heroes and villains is that if your plot is about the heroes, their character and motivations, then the villains should be flat and one dimensional so that we don't have to spend too much time with them. In AC, the Assassins are the protagonists and a movie has to show them as good guys so casting simple bad guys might work to a point.


4. Have a likeable protagonist,(but don't copy/paste another Assassin.) Have him be charismatic, clumsy, insecure, rude, polite, arrogant etc. Have this protagonists personality shine through and be a little different.

How can you ask them not to "copy/paste" while at the same time saying he should be Ezio-Clone! In any case, a movie is different solely because you have actors, gifted individuals who can portray traits in multi-dimensional ways beyond the CGI of games.

EmbodyingSeven5
09-13-2015, 01:40 PM
How can you ask them not to "copy/paste" while at the same time saying he should be Ezio-Clone! In any case, a movie is different solely because you have actors, gifted individuals who can portray traits in multi-dimensional ways beyond the CGI of games.

Does the word "Charismatic" suddenly mean "Ezio clone" now?


That scene is the very definition of exposition dump. Desmond conveniently tells the audience everything they need to know in the introductory scene: "You guys kidnapped me and strapped me into this machine! I'm a bartender, not an assassin! Well, maybe I used to be, but not anymore. Anyway, who are you people and what does this machine do?" Followed by Vidic explaining exactly what the Animus is, how it works, why Desmond is strapped to it and what Abstergo wants. ALL of that is exposition, told within the first 5 minutes.

I guess I was thinking of something worse in mind. Did you guys see Agent 47? In that film they display cut and dry exposition with no story sugarcoating at all. Just telling the audience Agent 47s past, all hes been through etc. I know the film needs exposition lol. I'm just saying since AC has such a deep history they don't need to run through too much of it. Also the beginning scene with Desmond didn't feel like it was forced to me. That's all I can say. At least give the exposition a story related reason for being there is all I ask.

VestigialLlama4
09-13-2015, 02:40 PM
Does the word "Charismatic" suddenly mean "Ezio clone" now?

On these forums and among AC fans it does. Is Altair and Connor described as "charismatic"? Hmm. Well I suppose Haytham and Edward were "charismatic" too and they aren't exactly Ezio-clones (well Haytham is kind of Templar-Ezio).

In cinema you have a broader palette of course. So charismatic can mean different things. Harrison Ford's Han Solo is charismatic in a different way than Indiana Jones and that's the same actor. All the James Bond actors project different kinds of personalities to the character and you can argue that Daniel Craig is the least charismatic James Bond and yet they seem to be respected (God knows why).


At least give the exposition a story related reason for being there is all I ask.

Firstly I think people need to stop bothering themselves too much Hollywood Screenwriting Textbook stuff. Have you seen Citizen Kane or say GoodFellas, those movies are wall to wall expositions and voiceovers and made by the greatest film-makers.

The main attraction of AC is precisely the Lore, the Conspiracy, the historical element, the way all this crazy metaphor connects, so I personally wouldn't mind a lot of expositions, voice overs, montages, digressions. Only thing is to do it like the best film-makers do it, with style and wit. If I were the film-makers I'd see a lot of Terry Gilliam movies like Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus or Baron Munchausen or even Time Bandits, where you have fantastic worlds, images and concepts explained and discussed with aplomb, also a lot of story-within-stories. So it can be done right. You just need talent that's all. If you don't have talent well you can always say that video games movies suck, that AC doesn't translate well into movies and all the other petty excuses people keep making in the industry (and elsewhere).

EmbodyingSeven5
09-13-2015, 03:34 PM
On these forums and among AC fans it does. Is Altair and Connor described as "charismatic"? Hmm. Well I suppose Haytham and Edward were "charismatic" too and they aren't exactly Ezio-clones (well Haytham is kind of Templar-Ezio).

In cinema you have a broader palette of course. So charismatic can mean different things. Harrison Ford's Han Solo is charismatic in a different way than Indiana Jones and that's the same actor. All the James Bond actors project different kinds of personalities to the character and you can argue that Daniel Craig is the least charismatic James Bond and yet they seem to be respected (God knows why).

I still think you went out of the way a little when you said that I wanted a Ezio clone because I used the word charismatic along with multiple other adjectives describing character.



Firstly I think people need to stop bothering themselves too much Hollywood Screenwriting Textbook stuff. Have you seen Citizen Kane or say GoodFellas, those movies are wall to wall expositions and voiceovers and made by the greatest film-makers

Yes but those were fairly rare examples of exposition done well. Often they are dull and spouted out. Hopefully the AC moive makes a good job of it.


The main attraction of AC is precisely the Lore, the Conspiracy, the historical element, the way all this crazy metaphor connects, so I personally wouldn't mind a lot of expositions, voice overs, montages, digressions. Only thing is to do it like the best film-makers do it, with style and wit. If I were the film-makers I'd see a lot of Terry Gilliam movies like Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus or Baron Munchausen or even Time Bandits, where you have fantastic worlds, images and concepts explained and discussed with aplomb, also a lot of story-within-stories. So it can be done right. You just need talent that's all. If you don't have talent well you can always say that video games movies suck, that AC doesn't translate well into movies and all the other petty excuses people keep making in the industry (and elsewhere).

Do you think the talent for that is possible here?

VestigialLlama4
09-13-2015, 03:56 PM
Do you think the talent for that is possible here?

If Ubisoft is going ahead and making a movie with people it believes to be untalented, then why make that movie? The talent is always possible its mostly a problem of putting across a best vision and whether that gets in the way of Ubisoft's ideas or you know if Ubisoft are thinking about franchising and so on, that means keeping material for future installments instead of telling a single story since everyone wants to be Marvel and as a result you have still-born movies everywhere, all of whom lack the bench-strength and plethora of material Marvel have to do that multi-universe thing.

The real problem for making a movie about modern games is that so many of them are already based on movies. Like why make GTA or Red Dead Redemption the movie when you have so many crime dramas and westerns it ripped off already existing somewhere? Why do Half Life the movie when you have so many post-apocalyptic movies and stories? Or Watch_Dogs when you have so many YA adaptations with similar themes. The original games are too game-y to make into a movie, like Portal. About the only decent video game movie is Disney's Wreck-It-Ralph but then that's not a video game movie so much as a movie about video games.

Why make an Assassin's Creed movie set in 1400s Spain instead of a historical film set in 1400s Spain? You can't have the same one protagonist one timeline concept from games and apply to the movies. They could have maybe done it like Cloud Atlas, stories in multiple eras of history, or The Fountainhead by Aronofsky (one section is set in 1400s Spain). Or most simply, they could go to the root of the story, go to the Crusades and deal with the origins there. There's never been a historical film about the Asasiyun because the religious and cultural stuff would prevent that from making it a mainstream film but the AC concept and mythology provides a great popular/pulp medium to tackle that.

EmbodyingSeven5
09-13-2015, 04:02 PM
If Ubisoft is going ahead and making a movie with people it believes to be untalented, then why make that movie? The talent is always possible its mostly a problem of putting across a best vision and whether that gets in the way of Ubisoft's ideas or you know if Ubisoft are thinking about franchising and so on, that means keeping material for future installments instead of telling a single story since everyone wants to be Marvel and as a result you have still-born movies everywhere, all of whom lack the bench-strength and plethora of material Marvel have to do that multi-universe thing.

The real problem for making a movie about modern games is that so many of them are already based on movies. Like why make GTA or Red Dead Redemption the movie when you have so many crime dramas and westerns it ripped off already existing somewhere? Why do Half Life the movie when you have so many post-apocalyptic movies and stories? Or Watch_Dogs when you have so many YA adaptations with similar themes. The original games are too game-y to make into a movie, like Portal. About the only decent video game movie is Disney's Wreck-It-Ralph but then that's not a video game movie so much as a movie about video games.

Why make an Assassin's Creed movie set in 1400s Spain instead of a historical film set in 1400s Spain? You can't have the same one protagonist one timeline concept from games and apply to the movies. They could have maybe done it like Cloud Atlas, stories in multiple eras of history, or The Fountainhead by Aronofsky (one section is set in 1400s Spain). Or most simply, they could go to the root of the story, go to the Crusades and deal with the origins there. There's never been a historical film about the Asasiyun because the religious and cultural stuff would prevent that from making it a mainstream film but the AC concept and mythology provides a great popular/pulp medium to tackle that.
Thank you. That was a well calculated and intelligent response.