PDA

View Full Version : Your opinion on the 65% modern day vs 35 % historical setting split in the AC movie



andreycvetov
05-12-2016, 02:16 PM
In a thread created by RinoTheBouncer I read that the film about Assassin's creed will have a strange split of screentime regarding its modern day setting and historical setting .The article states , that the film will favour it's modern day setting whit 65 % of it's screentime dedicated to it (and 35 % to historical ,into the animus stuff) .That got me highly concerned about the film , and wanted to hear what you guys think about it . I love modern day and while most people are against it , I defend it when I can , telling people that it's a crutial part of the story and something that makes Assassin's creed unique .But 65 % is far too much , yet I have seen only a trailer and can not comment on the quality of the movie .It could turn out great , for all I know . What do you think guys ?:confused:

kosmoscreed
05-12-2016, 02:34 PM
Is difficult to say, personally the main thing for me when I play the games is the "past", so if the movie is "mostly" about the present, I have to be worried, but is all about how interesting is the present day story and how the movie is edited. I think we have to wait and watch the movie before anything but I think is completely normal if people is worried because the present day in the games has been so bad for so long.....is inevitable to be worried even if the team behind the movie is not the same as the team behind the games.

Markaccus
05-12-2016, 02:40 PM
Look at it this way... if you watch a film about motorsport, even though the outcome of the plot/story is totally dependent on the outcome of races, you will find that , compared to non-racing sequences, there is not much racing at all. The historic action animus sequences are likely to be thrilling and fast paced, where as we will probably need more time in the modern day to explain to everyone what the f**k just went down! It sounds about right to me

Senningiri_GR
05-12-2016, 02:43 PM
Generally the Animus idea might look like flashbacks to non fans but it will be fine as long as they do not copy Desmond's story

cawatrooper9
05-12-2016, 03:11 PM
One thing you have to consider is whether or not they're planning on doing this as part of a series (and with reports that a sequel has already been greenlit, I think we have our answer). Callum's MD story, in that context becomes more than an overarching theme- it becomes the story, with the regressions basically as supplemental material.

In a game, we have almost always at least ten hours of story gameplay (often much more), plus much more time with side material. That's a lot of time to get familiar with a period character, even if they're only around for one game. In a two and a half hour film, we have to be much more selective about who we spend time with. We could spend the majority with Aguilar, which would be cool, but then we'd have a lukewarm attachment to Lynch, who is most likely going to be the protagonist in other entries in the series.

Yes, the AC games are most known for their historical parts, and while we'll certainly be getting them, the low amount we'll see may well be jarring to many people. I have no doubt about that, and it's a significant gamble on the studio's part. Still, to brand itself well, Ubisoft is really going to need to take control of the fundamentals of AC- and as much as we may hate to admit it, those fundamentals have quite a strong presence in the MD sections.

VestigialLlama4
05-12-2016, 04:54 PM
Movies are not games. It's important to remember that. In an AC game, the historical tourism is the main draw because it seems unique.

In a movie, instead of making an AC movie about the Inquisition, it's simpler to make an actual historical movie about the Inquisition. In an AC Movie, the science-fiction element is more interesting and unique than the historical part, and also you need to be involved with the character's drama and story. So that's why the movie will deal with the modern section far more.

cawatrooper9
05-12-2016, 05:15 PM
Keep in mind, too, that early drafts of the film were 100% MD.
It could've been much worse.

RVSage
05-12-2016, 05:25 PM
Perfect balance, it will introduce non-gamers to the core concepts of genetic memory, animus Assassins vs Templars, and so on.

Markaccus
05-12-2016, 05:26 PM
Movies are not games. It's important to remember that. In an AC game, the historical tourism is the main draw because it seems unique.

In a movie, instead of making an AC movie about the Inquisition, it's simpler to make an actual historical movie about the Inquisition. In an AC Movie, the science-fiction element is more interesting and unique than the historical part, and also you need to be involved with the character's drama and story. So that's why the movie will deal with the modern section far more.

Wow! Something I fully agree with!

I would also add...... we have all seen what happens when they take a game, and try to make a film based solely on the game play, with a VERY basic, often half-ar$ed plot explanation at the start. Mortal Kombat or Street Fighter, anyone??

Two thirds of the film in modern day should serve to keep everyone watching up to speed with exactly what is going on and why. Not everyone will have played the games after all.

VestigialLlama4
05-12-2016, 05:36 PM
Keep in mind, too, that early drafts of the film were 100% MD.
It could've been much worse.

To be honest, I don't think Assassin's Creed is a very cinematic game. I know many people think that it is cinematic but fundamentally the stuff that makes the game work is something you can't do in movies. The whole charm of AC is the illusion of you being in the past, climbing up these detailed 3D recreations of famous monuments buildings and historical personages and stuff, 70% of the games are Parkouring across the whole map, climbing everything, anything in sight, going from the greatest heights to ground level in any number of ways. The leap of faith of the top of a certian building has value because it's the player doing it. In the movies, we are all going to be watching some other guy do that stuff. I mean we've seen Tom Cruise climb the Burj al Khalifa in that bad Mission Impossible movie, that's as AC as you can get in movies, pay money to see Tom Cruise do stunts with his expensive trainers and equipment on standby.

A movie is also something you make for the general public, for an audience that has never played an AC game, that will probably not play an AC game after the movie is over (for most people Lara Croft is Angelina Jolie, not the polygon renders from the games), for whom the main exposure will be these movies. So you need to find the elements in the games that can successfully cross over and interest an audience. This is the main reason most game movies fail because they choose the wrong elements as representative. I think Ubisoft chose wrongly by selecting the genetic memory and ancestral DNA. The MD across all 9 games comprises probably 5% of the total games. The vast majority is the historical part. What they should have done is focus on the Creed itself, the idea of Assassins believing that some people are so evil that their deaths can bring good to society.

This is just my opinion, but ideally they should have made a down-to-earth historical adventure movie about the original Assassins. Because most people in the audience won't know who these guys are and if they see a movie with science-fiction and DNA they will wonder, "It's a decent Inception-movie but why is it called Assassin's Creed?" Now I can understand that a major studio would not want to fund a movie with an Arab protagonist (preferably played by an Arab actor) or that the character has a passing resemblance to modern terrorists. The other option is make it like Time Bandits or History of the World, Bill and Ted, albeit done seriously...you know a tour through different historical eras. So in one movie we can have say Altair, Ezio, Connor and Edward. We can have one or more characters interact or look at their memories and it can be a fun movie for a general public

Markaccus
05-12-2016, 05:55 PM
Those would make decent films, but they would not be films about the actual plot of the assassins creed games, if that makes any sense.

Ureh
05-12-2016, 06:23 PM
Probably one of the lesser reasons, but so far all of the more well-known actors seem to only reside in the present day. Does anyone remember Jeremy Irons' brief role in The Time Machine? Probably not right? He was only on for a few minutes. They want this film to be memorable and you need Irons to be front and center where he belongs: the CEO of Abstergo and Grand Master of the Templar Order. And of course Marion Cotillard too. She spends the entirety of the Inception movie as a fragment of someone's memory! A memory! Imagine what she could do if she plays a central role in the present day. It's about time right? After all these years we finally get a to put a face and voice to Alan Rikkin and not have to rely on snippets every few years? And who would've guessed that Jeremy Irons gets to have that honor?!


Look at it this way... if you watch a film about motorsport, even though the outcome of the plot/story is totally dependent on the outcome of races, you will find that , compared to non-racing sequences, there is not much racing at all. The historic action animus sequences are likely to be thrilling and fast paced, where as we will probably need more time in the modern day to explain to everyone what the f**k just went down! It sounds about right to me

That's right! Have you watched golf? Most of the time all you can see is a someone crouching really close to the floor for a couple minutes, then hear some commentators commentating, and finally they swing the club (and usually miss). Rinse and repeat. x)

VestigialLlama4
05-12-2016, 06:29 PM
Those would make decent films, but they would not be films about the actual plot of the assassins creed games, if that makes any sense.

You mean the fact that we start each AC game in MD before going to the past? In any case what exactly is the "plot" of AC games: Abstergo, AvT, Juno and the First Civ, Satellite Launch, Desmond Miles and his family? The truth is AC itself is confused about its central plot and ultimately the plot is not relevant. The MD is a small tiny portion of the gameplay and story of AC, it always has been, it seems bigger thanks to the fans and so on but 95% of the games in toto is the historical portion.

In a movie you have to deal with the essence of the games that make it interesting. And AC has two of that:

1) The idea and philosophy of the Creed, the idea of murdering someone for great good. It's origins during the Crusades

2) The overwhelming historical adventure and time travel. The idea that Altair, Ezio, Connor and Edward are all connected and part of the crazy universe. This kind actually has had success, Time Bandits, History of the World, Bill and Ted, Back to the Future. You could tap into that but make it a little serious. Of all AC games, I think Revelations would have been the one with the best plot to transition. Like the end of Revelations where Desmond and Ezio talk and the whole "communicate across centuries" is a very movie moment. Acutally I think the idea of Unity, "Paris through the ages" or a plot of similar nature would work better for movies.

In the movie, you have Callum Lynch visiting the Inquisition and his ancestor looks like him. Now suppose you have a sequel and we go to another era, and another of Fassbender's ancestors looks just like him...you are going to think that Lynch's grandfolks were incestuous.

Markaccus
05-12-2016, 06:33 PM
That's right! Have you watched golf? Most of the time all you can see is a someone crouching really close to the floor for a couple minutes, then hear some commentators commentating, and finally they swing the club (and usually miss). Rinse and repeat. x)

I tend not to watch golf, but yeah, thats another good example of having cohesive explanations as to what is happening, to avoid confusion and boredom

Markaccus
05-12-2016, 06:40 PM
You mean the fact that we start each AC game in MD before going to the past? In any case what exactly is the "plot" of AC games: Abstergo, AvT, Juno and the First Civ, Satellite Launch, Desmond Miles and his family? The truth is AC itself is confused about its central plot and ultimately the plot is not relevant. The MD is a small tiny portion of the gameplay and story of AC, it always has been, it seems bigger thanks to the fans and so on but 95% of the games in toto is the historical portion.

In a movie you have to deal with the essence of the games that make it interesting. And AC has two of that:

1) The idea and philosophy of the Creed, the idea of murdering someone for great good. It's origins during the Crusades

2) The overwhelming historical adventure and time travel. The idea that Altair, Ezio, Connor and Edward are all connected and part of the crazy universe. This kind actually has had success, Time Bandits, History of the World, Bill and Ted, Back to the Future. You could tap into that but make it a little serious. Of all AC games, I think Revelations would have been the one with the best plot to transition. Like the end of Revelations where Desmond and Ezio talk and the whole "communicate across centuries" is a very movie moment. Acutally I think the idea of Unity, "Paris through the ages" or a plot of similar nature would work better for movies.

In the movie, you have Callum Lynch visiting the Inquisition and his ancestor looks like him. Now suppose you have a sequel and we go to another era, and another of Fassbender's ancestors looks just like him...you are going to think that Lynch's grandfolks were incestuous.

Well, to keep it simple, the plot and story of the assassins creed series has been about modern day assassins and templars trying to out do each other, with the later addition of the Juno thing. It has covered a lot of ground. The historical tourism has always been a means for the MD people to gain an advantage for whichever side they belong to. Thats the basic plot line I have always taken from the games. I dont like to over think it.
The films you suggest would probably make for good entertainment, and I would certainly watch the hell out of them! I am just pointing out that the basic story of AC games would not really be represented in these films

Ithey would almost be like the wolverine spin offs from the x-men series. In fact, I insist these films are made, along side the sci-fi based main series that i hope is established in december! They could deal with all the moral issues that you feel strongly about (i agree mostly) and the Creeds origins, and then people will have more to discuss about which type of film they prefer, and why.

VestigialLlama4
05-12-2016, 06:52 PM
The films you suggest would probably make for good entertainment, and I would certainly watch the hell out of them! I am just pointing out that the basic story of AC games would not really be represented in thise films

You ask people about the basic story of Assassin's Creed and different people will say different things. AC is about Desmond's journey, until he died in Black Flag, it's about Juno who only came in from Brotherhood onwards...Most people think AC is about Ezio Auditore, the most visible, heavily promoted character of the series. He's not an MD character and he was part of 3 games. The nostalgia for AC2 does not revolve around Desmond leaving the Animus. When people talk of Black Flag, they think pirates, blackbeard, sea shanties, pirate battles.

The basic story of AC is not as important as what the games represent to audiences.

cawatrooper9
05-12-2016, 07:05 PM
The whole charm of AC is the illusion of you being in the past, climbing up these detailed 3D recreations of famous monuments buildings and historical personages and stuff, 70% of the games are Parkouring across the whole map, climbing everything, anything in sight, going from the greatest heights to ground level in any number of ways. The leap of faith of the top of a certian building has value because it's the player doing it. In the movies, we are all going to be watching some other guy do that stuff. I mean we've seen Tom Cruise climb the Burj al Khalifa in that bad Mission Impossible movie, that's as AC as you can get in movies, pay money to see Tom Cruise do stunts with his expensive trainers and equipment on standby.


I'd say that's relatively fair. The protagonists of each game- floating tablets #1 and #2, the Initiate, heck even Desmond- they're all rather bland characters in a world teeming with lore (and at the very least, potential for lore), thus allowing the player to immerse themselves more fully in the game. You're right to think that wouldn't translate well into a game, and that's likely why this film focuses more on building a more likable character in the MD.

Still, I think the past segments can be exciting, in their own right. But they have to be implemented well. Hopefully, the emphasis on MD in the film will truly ensure that the past segments have meaning to the overarching story.

Markaccus
05-12-2016, 07:19 PM
You ask people about the basic story of Assassin's Creed and different people will say different things. AC is about Desmond's journey, until he died in Black Flag, it's about Juno who only came in from Brotherhood onwards...Most people think AC is about Ezio Auditore, the most visible, heavily promoted character of the series. He's not an MD character and he was part of 3 games. The nostalgia for AC2 does not revolve around Desmond leaving the Animus. When people talk of Black Flag, they think pirates, blackbeard, sea shanties, pirate battles.

The basic story of AC is not as important as what the games represent to audiences.

Again, I agree with a lot of that. What I am trying to convey is this:

Assassins creed games have in common the following - a person uses a device (animus or helix) to live out genetic memories. This portion is sci-fi. When they are actually experiencing those memories (the main game-play portion) we get the historical tourism. Now, this film seems to be exactly about all of that. It just so happens that, as you said yourself, games are not movies, so a different balance had to be struck between past and present, hence the 65/35 MD/GM split.

You are really enthusiastic (more than me, and believe me i am quite enthusiastic) about the lore,morals and history of the creed itself. But thats because we have played these games since forever, and as the series went on, we were introduced to more twists and moral dilemas. Not everyone has played the games, so I believe introducing non-gamers to AC with essentially the same method as we were introduced through AC1 is a great idea, with the balance shift to make it a decent film, instead of a Doom-type mess.

There is absolutely a good case to make your movies, for people like us who want to explore the Creed itself, the origins of the struggle between As and Ts and all of the moral trimmings that come with it. There could even be one based entirely on the first civ. We get to see the start of it all from TWCB point of view.

VestigialLlama4
05-12-2016, 07:34 PM
Assassins creed games have in common the following - a person uses a device (animus or helix) to live out genetic memories. This portion is sci-fi. When they are actually experiencing those memories (the main game-play portion) we get the historical tourism. Now, this film seems to be exactly about all of that.

Well it seems to me that the film is trying to ape the same approach as the games and the transmedia. I personally don't think this is a good idea.


You are really enthusiastic (more than me, and believe me i am quite enthusiastic) about the lore,morals and history of the creed itself. But thats because we have played these games since forever, and as the series went on, we were introduced to more twists and moral dilemas.

Speak for youself, I am a proud casual. I don't give a damn about the Modern Day, about Juno, about the AvT. About the Lore. I never gave a damn about the Pieces of Eden anymore than I did about the Stairway to Paradise. I bought AC2 because it had a sandbox of Renaissance Italy and I thought that sounded rad. The same with the others. For me the setting of each game, the gameplay, the approach to history is what makes these games interesting. The rest is just there as MacGuffin, it allows developers to go to any new location they choose, fundamentally modern day is not important to the AC experience.


Not everyone has played the games, so I believe introducing non-gamers to AC with essentially the same method as we were introduced through AC1 is a great idea, with the balance shift to make it a decent film, instead of a Doom-type mess.

Introducing non-gamers to AC is a stupid reason to make an AC movie. Most of the audience won't buy a PS4 and sink into the AC catalogue. The kind of public who would do that would be invested in games to have already done that. The only reason to make an AC movie is to make a decent movie. And besides, they are not introducing it to us the same method as AC1, AC1 focused on the historical Asasiyun, code and order.

joshoolhorst
05-12-2016, 07:44 PM
It just depends on the way it is done in my opinion but it feels of. I hope my friends/family will expierence still a good AC storyline.

But the problem I see now is reviewing the movie. Some people will just bash on the movie even when it is good because the Modern Day. I see IGN go like Modern Day movie sucks!

Markaccus
05-12-2016, 07:46 PM
Well it seems to me that the film is trying to ape the same approach as the games and the transmedia. I personally don't think this is a good idea.



Speak for youself, I am a proud casual. I don't give a damn about the Modern Day, about Juno, about the AvT. About the Lore. I never gave a damn about the Pieces of Eden anymore than I did about the Stairway to Paradise. I bought AC2 because it had a sandbox of Renaissance Italy and I thought that sounded rad. The same with the others. For me the setting of each game, the gameplay, the approach to history is what makes these games interesting. The rest is just there as MacGuffin, it allows developers to go to any new location they choose, fundamentally modern day is not important to the AC experience.



Introducing non-gamers to AC is a stupid reason to make an AC movie. Most of the audience won't buy a PS4 and sink into the AC catalogue. The kind of public who would do that would be invested in games to have already done that. The only reason to make an AC movie is to make a decent movie. And besides, they are not introducing it to us the same method as AC1, AC1 focused on the historical Asasiyun, code and order.

Ok, i just want to address a couple of those points... I am not saying the REASON for making this movie was to include non-gamers. What i am saying is, there is no point making a movie that ONLY gamers are going to understand and enjoy.

And they are not really aping the game, since the balance between MD and History has shifted, but i do think that people who have not played the games, and have no concept yet of the code or lore, will watch this and BECOME interested, and are ripe for a sequel which explains more about these things.

Sorrosyss
05-12-2016, 10:00 PM
I'm beyond happy if this is true. Modern day is the core, and what helped me fall in love with the series. I just hope this is a reaffirmation of Ubisoft's commitment to it, and that we see a similar amount of MD in the next title. That may be overly optimistic, but I remain in hope. ;)

Megas_Doux
05-13-2016, 02:04 AM
Movies are not games. It's important to remember that. In an AC game, the historical tourism is the main draw because it seems unique.

In a movie, instead of making an AC movie about the Inquisition, it's simpler to make an actual historical movie about the Inquisition. In an AC Movie, the science-fiction element is more interesting and unique than the historical part, and also you need to be involved with the character's drama and story. So that's why the movie will deal with the modern section far more.

Pretty well put.

SixKeys
05-13-2016, 08:06 AM
Introducing non-gamers to AC is a stupid reason to make an AC movie. Most of the audience won't buy a PS4 and sink into the AC catalogue. The kind of public who would do that would be invested in games to have already done that. The only reason to make an AC movie is to make a decent movie. And besides, they are not introducing it to us the same method as AC1, AC1 focused on the historical Asasiyun, code and order.

I don't think that's their primary goal, to pretend that non-gamers are going to get interested in games after seeing the movie. What Ubi has been doing lately is branching out into every different type of medium, to create their own Marvel-like connected universe. I don't read Marvel comics but I can enjoy their movies, meaning my money will still go to Marvel even if I never get into the comics. Same with AC. The movie's primary purpose is to attract a crowd of newcomers who will get interested in the overall universe - books, comics, collectibles etc.

pacmanate
05-13-2016, 10:40 AM
Best thing they could have done. It's a movie, not a game, so MD has to be way more prominent.

If the MD sucks in the movie it will face the same plague that it does for the games now, where we exit the animus as a tablet or for a cutscene and all we want is to go back to the action.

The movie needs to set up the MD as something mysterious and worthwhile to watch, not to mention we need Abstergo probably established in the movie universe or, like I said before, it will become the most boring part of the film.

cawatrooper9
05-13-2016, 05:01 PM
Anyone remember how the general reception of MD in the first game was? I remember it was kind of striking to me- I didn't really expect it all, to be honest, and I wasn't even remotely drawn in until the next game.

I think casual fans (moviegoers who haven't played the games) will be a little more primed for MD, given the trailers, but I think Assassins Creed still comes with the expectation that it's about the past. As Sorrosyss points out, there's at least a debate to be had on whether or not the identity of the series lies in the MD or the past (my money is somewhere in between) but I think it's pretty much a given that's not how the general public sees it.

SixKeys
05-13-2016, 10:23 PM
Anyone remember how the general reception of MD in the first game was? I remember it was kind of striking to me- I didn't really expect it all, to be honest, and I wasn't even remotely drawn in until the next game.

Maybe it depends on your expectations? I hadn't followed any news about AC beyond the cinematic trailer before I picked up the first game. I didn't really know what to expect, beyond that the game was about an assassin during the Crusades. When the game started in that simulation gone haywire, where you had no idea what was going on and who was talking, and then they pull you back and reveal you're a prisoner in this futuristic lab, my mind was blown. I instantly wanted to know what this stuff had to do with the visuals we had been presented in the trailer. The MD is what hooked me, precisely because I wasn't expecting it.

Locopells
05-13-2016, 11:27 PM
I remember how they kept that very under wraps during production and, when they accidentally de-synced during E3, were all 'we can't talk about that'...

VestigialLlama4
05-14-2016, 06:00 AM
In my opinion, the Modern Day was a compromise and backup plan.

Patrice Desilets in his interview never discusses the MD, certainly not in the Double Fine video posted a while back. And obviously they wanted to make the Assassins relatable and keep it secular. So the whole framing device and MD was invented for that. The second was that, since AC1's historical narrative was a bit ambitious, they could always make the sequel a full MD and update the Parkour mechanics and stuff to a modern era.

Then AC1's reception happened, where whatever complaints people had about Altair and the historical part, the complaints about Desmond were worse. So AC2 gave him very little MD, chucked out the original Satellite Plot (which obviously would have needed a showdown at some spacelaunch facility for it have any meaning) and came up with a new ball of thread to throw down. Darby McDevitt said that AC2 was going to have half MD and half historical originally, then they made in 98% historical 2% present. So that kind of drastic reversal shows the importance MD had all along.

And the success of AC2-Brotherhood-Revelations has meant that Assassin's Creed is a historical series.

Jessigirl2013
05-14-2016, 01:29 PM
In a thread created by RinoTheBouncer I read that the film about Assassin's creed will have a strange split of screentime regarding its modern day setting and historical setting .The article states , that the film will favour it's modern day setting whit 65 % of it's screentime dedicated to it (and 35 % to historical ,into the animus stuff) .That got me highly concerned about the film , and wanted to hear what you guys think about it . I love modern day and while most people are against it , I defend it when I can , telling people that it's a crutial part of the story and something that makes Assassin's creed unique .But 65 % is far too much , yet I have seen only a trailer and can not comment on the quality of the movie .It could turn out great , for all I know . What do you think guys ?:confused:

I'm actually surprised... I assumed they would have almost the entire movie in the past and then briefly flit to MD is flashbacks or something like that.

I would much prefer they had more MD in the games instead of the movie... As I think it gives UBI an excuse to be slack on MD in the future as they can always say "oh we covered it in the movie"

JamesFaith007
05-14-2016, 07:16 PM
I personally consider it logical move from Ubisoft.

They want series of AC movies so they have to built solid connecting line between them and MD is more fitting for this then historical sequences in Animus. And when modern times plot will be strong enough they can change ratio in favor of past.

Megas_Doux
05-14-2016, 07:28 PM
I personally consider it logical move from Ubisoft.

They want series of AC movies so they have to built solid connecting line between them and MD is more fitting for this then historical sequences in Animus. And when modern times plot will be strong enough they can change ratio in favor of past.

Indeed!

In game, modern story aside from the mystery and such, has ALWAYS been a chore gameplay wise.

Jessigirl2013
05-25-2016, 05:36 PM
Indeed!

In game, modern story aside from the mystery and such, has ALWAYS been a chore gameplay wise.

Its personal taste.. IMO it's what made me fall in love with the franchise.:cool:

Its what made it different from a lot of other AAA games.