Guild wars movie

The Lich= oprah?!?


omg lol

this would be very funny

First of all, box office does not determine the good/bad of a movie, it determine its success at making money or loosing money. Taste is not measurable by money.
Number 2, yes some of the movies I mention did not make money, like super mario brothers, final fantasy, alone in the dark. But MOST OF THEM make money. even mortal kombat and street fighter.

10/10/2003 House of the Dead, The Artisan The Budget: $7,000,000 US box office $10,199,354 International box office $13,767,816
7/21/2000 Pokemon 2000 Warner Bros. The Budget: $30,000,000, US box office $43,746,923, International box office $133,946,923
4/6/2001 Pokemon 3: The Movie Warner Bros. The Budget: $3,000,000 US box office $17,052,128 International box office $68,452,128
11/21/1997 Mortal Kombat: Annihilation The Budget $30,000,000 US box office $35,927,406 International box office $51,327,406
12/23/1994 Street Fighter, Universal The Budget $35,000,000 US box office $33,423,000 International box office $99,423,000
6/15/2001 Lara Croft: Tomb Raider Paramount Pictures The Budget $94,000,000 US box office $131,144,183 International box office $274,644,183
9/10/2004 Resident Evil: Apocalypse Sony The Budget $50,000,000 US box office $50,740,078 International box office $128,940,078
4/21/2006 Silent Hill Sony The Budget $50,000,000 US box office $46,982,632 International box office $99,982,632

Bleh, why do I get hook up with forums... *sigh*

i think I'll slowly withdraw from this box office argument and leave you guys with "Make Love, Not Warcraft"

Happy Days, may ectos be with you.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the budget of the film doesn't include distribution costs. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the "box office" doesn't include overhead (aka, the money you pay the theater).

/signed

Naysayers, I say nay to you. As an example, Transformers was based on, and it states in the credits, the toy line. The show based on the toys was a heaping pile. The movie, in my opinion, great success. You can't just base a movie's success on where it came from or what it's based on or how shoddy similar imitations have been.

Secondly, it doesn't need to be marketed as "Guild Wars, we played a video game that we thought was cool so we turned it into a movie!" The action genre will always be a hit if played correctly. Most people in the world are dumb as a box of rocks when it comes to literature, and yet I'm predicting Beowulf (in threeeee deeee!11!) a smashing success. Why? Not because it's based on something classical (heaven knows how many people had actually heard of the olde English story before the film and heaven knows how many will make that correlation afterwards), but because it's clearly broadcast as a hardcore action movie. That, and it has semi-animated Angelina Jolie partially nude in all of the trailers. Yes friends, sex and violence will sell.

Thirdly, there are so many subterranean plots that even some GW players don't care to read into. My girlfriend, that got me started on the game, never bothered to read quest lines or view cinematics. It's not because they were bad (per se), just because she was too busy playing the game to notice. A lot of plots and subplots could very well become a movie storyline or a saga storyline, and flashbacks abound both from what we've seen and what ANet keeps throwing at us (see BMP for details!).

These things having been said, I think that it could be pulled off. I think that it could potentially draw GW and non-GW fans alike. I also think, as a last little insertion, that even particular skill names could be cautiously placed in the dialog so that players would catch it and newcomers wouldn't be ostracized by it. Example: As the final fight comes to a close, party members are weakened to the point of near-death. With victory in sight but Ella the Elementalist too drained to cast the finishing spell, Nick the Necromancer kneels down and draws a few inscriptions on the ground. With his final breath, he slices his wrist and lets out a cry, "May my blood be your power!" Meteor Showers. Fin.

Anyway it'd be fun.

"First of all, box office does not determine the good/bad of a movie, it determine its success at making money or loosing money. Taste is not measurable by money.
Number 2, yes some of the movies I mention did not make money, like super mario brothers, final fantasy, alone in the dark. But MOST OF THEM make money. even mortal kombat and street fighter. "


its not about taste, one can clearly define what is a good movie or not regardless of taste.

NONE of those movies you mentioned will stand the test of time and they will only be referred to in the future as movies that were particularly bad.

NONE of those movies had any aim beyond milking a particular fanbase and hype, they knew they were making a terrible movie and they didn't give a damm.

If you honestly think those were good movies then...

Its is of my (and general) opinion that videogame movies have done the film and videogame industry more harm than good. The are filmed, produced, directed by people who care not about the franchise and who clearlyhaven't even played the game mentioned

Fengshui, Transformers is based on a COMIC/TV show not toys. sigh.
Whats more Transformers was not the first successful movie to make that jump, Hollywood has gotten the transition down in the past few years.

GW has NO particularity's other that its your run of the mill fantasy world.
its not ACTION its fantasy.

"Meteor Showers" "necromancers" are not trademarks of GW they exist in every single fantasy world.

You even go and mention that the plot is so weak that you didnt even BOTHER reading it. sheesh.

for your info I quoted myself, i did not even watch all those video game movies except Tomb Raider, Why I did not watch them, because they are BAD MOVIES in my opinion. However, does my opinion that they are bad movies make it a bad idea to make those movies? NO, BECAUSE THEY MAKE MONEY.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not the one who equate net profit to good movie. However, i am not sure I understand =/= << That sign.


the whole time, what i am saying is this: it is a very good idea to make video game into movie because they make money. there is no personal taste in what movie is good or bad involve, no personal work experience involve, its a fun thread to begin with, because I love watching movie, been watching movie since I am a baby, but I can only remember as far back as 5 years old. Watching movie is a passion, but I am not mixing that passion in making the decision that it is a bad idea to use video game as the setting of a movie. I am hoping that Legend Pictures will make one hell of a good Warcraft movie, so I get to watch it. And I hope someone will make one hell of a even better Guild Wars Movie, so I get to watch that as well.

One final time, it is a very good idea to use video game as the setting for a movie, may the out come of the movie be bad, I don't care, at the end of the day, the most important thing for the production company is that the movie makes money.

err no if its a bad movie it will negatively impact the movie industry AND do the game industry no favours at the same time.

For the sake of a quick buck, comic based movies were relegated to Z type usually straight to video titles while contributing to the false stereotype that they were "shallow" and "for kids"...for DECADES.

Now computer special effects were a major turning point for comic/superhero based movies, however take Unbreakable for example. A movie that manages to convey the spirit of comicdom without falling into the SFX overload trap. This is contrary to say Transformers which draws its pulling power from its ASTOUNDING SFX ,nostalgia value and over the board hype.

Now WHY did (for example) Transformers receive the budget NECESSARY to become a passable movie?

Because other movies opened the way. And how did they open the way? By being GOOD MOVIES.

Its simple Hollywood 101.

Making BAD movies based on a passing social phenomenon/reflection regardless on whether they make a bit of money or not is a BAD thing for everyone.

its basic cause to effect.

=/= means "is not equal to"

Pumpkin Pie....

In your own words you said what you're doing here. You said, "However, i am not sure I understand =/= << That sign." Why do you argue against stuff you don't understand??? And why do you argue with information you don't understand???

Why did you bold "The Budget"??? LMAO What does the budget have to do with the box office gross. Do you even know what "the budget" is? It has little bearing on actual costs. The budget is the ideal, not the reality. Most films go over budget. In fact, while googling I found the negative costs (which aren't even the total costs... see HawkofStorm's post about distribution costs) on the two Mortal Kombat films. They were $20MM and $50MM.

Btw, the figure you posted for the box office gross on American Gangster was wrong. For current and correct information on new releases, your best resources are the websites of the industry trade papers, "The Hollywood Reporter," and "Daily Variety."

When I asked for games that translated well to film, you cited films you haven't even seen... so you don't even know. What the...??? Btw, 'translating to film' has nothing to do with how much money a film does or doesn't make. Lots of wonderful films don't make money because they are never 'discovered' and therefore never marketed or distributed properly.

And when it comes to the 'making money' part which you so value, you don't know what box office gross means, you don't know what the budget represents, you don't know what the symbol for 'not equal to' means and you post incorrect information...

THAT'S what I'm talking about when I say your "information" is neither thoughtful nor informed.

The smartest thing I've seen you say in all this is, "Bleh, why do I get hook up with forums... *sigh*...i think I'll slowly withdraw from this box office argument" So... why don't you? Because you LIKE the taste of your feet?

Whatever you do, DONT let the guys behind the DOOM movie make it.. that movie has nothing to do with the Game(s)

We will most likely never see a movie about Guild Wars, there is simply too much information to try and cram into it. Even if it was done in several installments. It is/would be much easier for Blizzard to make a movie about Warcraft (not world of warcraft), because of the fact that there is a followable story line, it's linear, and has identifiable and defined protagonists and antagonists. Guild Wars simply does not. Who is the hero in Guild Wars? You the player. There are 10 professions, which would the movie revolve around? This is what would make it nearly impossible to write.

Wow. An entire arguement based on a guy not understanding that =/= means not equal to. God, I knew I shouldn't have included that in my post.

And here is the crux of the matter. Movies are stories. Game storylines are necessarily different than movie storylines. Spielberg said that "the medium will come of age when somebody confesses that they cried at Level 17.'' That one little statement speaks volumes about why games are not yet the stuff films are made of.

Watch the movie credits.

Relevance? If Hollywood can successfully forge transitions between pre-existing fantasy worlds and film, then how does that counter the idea of a Guild Wars movie?

Did you actually READ my post? I love reading every single quest that I accept and watching every cinematic. P'raps before you critique something you should know what it says.

Watch the Transformers credits. Read my post.

kthxbye

/notsigned if wow's already made the movie then their's no point. And if anyone suggested an online dating love theme, you have issues *did not have the time to look through the entire forum*

I think that the problem is while GW is a fun game, its setting is actually very generic. Really, it's just another medieval high fantasy world, (albeit w/o elves & orcs *thank god*).

I could see it being done as an animated series - not necessarily anime, but I don't see a live action treatment of GW.

The other problem is that there really aren't any main characters - even the named ones are sort of just supporting characters...

oh right YOU did, your GF didn't (nvm that you never bothered stating that in your op)

"watch the movie credits?" err wake the f-up and walk into a comic shop? seriously go into one and spout out that BS and live the happy experience of a bunch of fanboys laughing you out.

honestly know wtf your talking about before responding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers_franchise

Lol. What a noob Fengshui. Apparently 14 years of comics, 10 years worth of TV shows, and like 5 movies is "only a toy line." The toys came FIRST, so that is why it says that they are based on the toys in the movie credits. But there is A LOT of storyline developed over the years outside the toyline.

I don't care how we cast everyone else as long as we have:

Patrick Stewart as Rurik
Chrsitopher Walken as Vizier Khilbron/Lich King
Anotnio Banderas as Shiro
Samuel L. Jackson as Koss
Jackie Chan as Master Togo
Chris Tucker as Gwen

It'll either be great or hilarious or both.

You. Still. Didn't. Read. My. Post. Dick.

To major Transformers comic fans that apparently we have here: please again read what I said in my post. If you're too lazy to read what I actually said, please don't respond. All I said is that what the entire thing is based on was the toys. Hawk, you just said the toys came first. That's all I said. That, and that the movie cites the toys as the inspiration. Would you like a damn screenshot?

Sleeper, it's apparent that you're not worth arguing with, nor will you be convinced either of your incorrectness or your illiteracy, so, just as I said in my OP (which, again you will probably refuse to read): naysayers, I say nay to you.

You care way too much about movies based on toy robots and video games.

Argue? theres nothing to argue. You dont know wtf youre talking about friend. Thats all.

Well, you know G1 Transformers the cartoon was based off Diaclone toys made in Japan. They made new "Transformers" and relabeled the old Diaclone line and then made the show about it in 1982.

The Transformers 2007 movie was not based off the toys. The toys were designed after. First time they ever did that with Transformers.

So there you go.

Angelina Jolie has to be Devona.
Bridget Fonda as Eve.

I think Ms Jolie would make a pretty good Nika or Zho, personally

Zho maybe, but she's too round for Nika. Maybe Kate Moss as Nika. She's the only one tiny enough.

Do you really want to waste Ms Jolie as a side character. (That's basically what they are.)

Lol... I think you just made your first $100 Billion movie...
LotR was grand in the scale of having more or less famous but not THE most famous actors in it.
Every movie gets carried by a main actor and several less important ones.
How on earth would you go about and pay for this.
Especially if the source delivering it is a game.
LotR was famous for over 50 years before they even decided making a movie about it.

While I do like the idea of a GW movie being made I would say.

Less stereotypical actors in the list.

Least of which Tom Cruise.

All A-list celebs are stereotypical. That's why they're so popular.

Are they going to scream whenever they use a skill?

(Devona gets slashed and falls)
Mhenlo: NO!! Orr..i..son.. of.. HEALING!!!

Devona: Thanks i'm all better!

Owen Wilson = Sousuke XDD

Does Anet have the money to do this?
If they do and it flops, will they have enough money to continue with Guild Wars, the game?
Can anet even get one A-list celebrity to CONSIDER starring in the movie?
Seriously, do they have enough $$$ to make it a good movie?

The question is, do they have enough story to make this a good movie?

My choice of players. (Just for fun)

Owen Wilson is Mhenlo (choice 1)
Wentworth Miller is Mhenlo (choice 2)
Angelina Jolie is Varesh
second choice Varesh is Stacy Ferguson
Scarlett Johansson is Cynn
Mads Mikkelsen is Shiro.
Zac Efron can be Souseke the actor is rather irritating (in my opinion) so is Souseke.
Queen Latifah or Iman can be Komir
Halle Berry is Tahlkora
Rhona Mitra/Sophie Okonedo is Meloni
John Malkovich is Master Togo
Clive Owen is Prince Rurik
Devon Aoki is Nika
Tyrese Gibson will be Sogolon
Claire Danes is Devona

and what the.... kung fu panda? lol, definitely watching that.

Of course not. Doesn't stop us from making jokes about it.

Tom Selleck IS .... Prince RURIK! starring in Guild Wars! the movie! Fear the mustache!!! (I'm really serious here!)

A magnificent epic fantasy trilogy! Prophecies, Factions and Nightfall! EotN might have a little tie-in in part one.

and what about Winona Ryder as grown up Gwen

oh oh, and that Chinese guy from Karate Kid, mr. Miyagi, as Togo! LOL how w00t is THAT!

I'd SO love that to happen, as long as it's NOT directed or touched in any way by Uwe Boll. God I hate that man.

WoW has millions of pounds to put into the movie, Guild Wars has hardly any, and is spending all of it on GW2.

Yea, I don't think Anet can pay for real actors.
It would have to be CGI, it works for Final Fantasy movies.
I'm not narrow sighted enough to suggest the guys from BeoWulf; sides those can charge 20 times more now they hit a lucky success.
Not Pixar either because they can't draw...

I know, what peeps did the Starship Troopers CGI series back in the day? They where unbelievable with the technology at that time; they could do triple the quality of BeoWulf with what we have today.
And if they are still in business(yes that may be rather unlikely), they're probably aching for work.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/companycredits

still in business...such a underrated movie.

That's one hell of a movie.

Do you want to know more?

No no, I'm not talking about the movie's(saw number 2 last week though, its just out), I'm talking about the animated series.
(I have no clue which came first, probably both based on some book I know nothing about)
But the movies are pretty much small budged work, though very reasonable considering the limited resources.

But there is/was a series too, in CGI. It had them wear space suits, and strut around on many planets as a special strike team, instead of the normal soldiers the movies are about.
and there was a friendly alien helping them, which is about the biggest difference to tell them apart.
They have a far less grim outlook that the movies do, when I was a kid I loved them.

[EDIT]
found a pic, too brain dead to find an informative link right now.

[EDITED EDIT]
forget a informative link, watch the show. Lolz I really am brain dead not to think of this before
[LAST THOUGHT EDIT]
Hmmm re-watching reminds me just how bad shaders and fake drops where back in the last millenium... lol almost looks worse than GW, kinda hurst my eyes...

Am I hijacking the thread?...

Hi Koa and SC...

Anet wouldn't make the film themselves. NCSoft (probably since ANet is wholly owned by NCSoft) would strike a deal with a production company (just like Blizzard did with Legendary Pictures) that would strike a deal with a distribution company to get the financing, and in the main and end credits you would see a series of different entities responsible for bringing the film to you... just like you do in most films today.