Bouldercleave wrote: »There is a LONG history of failed D&D style movies spanning several decades. These types of movies are generally flops unless you can get MASSIVE financial and star power backing (these two things generally go hand in hand).
It would either have to be non live action or epically live action along the lines of the most recent version of Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Even those had been done before and failed and are FAR more widely publicly known.
I put yes because I personally would be there in a heartbeat, but I see them doing a lower budget, thin story with B tier actors and it being one of the biggest flops since the live action D&D movie.
Bouldercleave wrote: »There is a LONG history of failed D&D style movies spanning several decades. These types of movies are generally flops unless you can get MASSIVE financial and star power backing (these two things generally go hand in hand).
It would either have to be non live action or epically live action along the lines of the most recent version of Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. Even those had been done before and failed and are FAR more widely publicly known.
I put yes because I personally would be there in a heartbeat, but I see them doing a lower budget, thin story with B tier actors and it being one of the biggest flops since the live action D&D movie.
I think the biggest issues isn't video game movies as the automatic reason Elder Scrolls The Movie would fail, but because it's an RPG that everyone creates a character, and so people who identify with their characters won't see the main hero in a movie fitting their playstyle.
MerguezMan wrote: »I don't see that fit in a 1.5/2 hours movie, so that means we'd have either a super-long intro probably butchering the lore, or no lore exposition at all, letting people guess what characters are (ie. try to guess who Gandalf is exactly by only watching the movie, then check the lore and see if you got it right...).
MerguezMan wrote: »I don't see that fit in a 1.5/2 hours movie, so that means we'd have either a super-long intro probably butchering the lore, or no lore exposition at all, letting people guess what characters are (ie. try to guess who Gandalf is exactly by only watching the movie, then check the lore and see if you got it right...).
I don't think a movie has to include every single detail of background lore. You always have that problem when it comes to movies based on books (well, at least if it's a complex work). I think it's totally acceptable to show viewers a part, a story within a world and expect them to inform themselves if they want to know more.
It's crazy to me that anyone would vote no on this, despite the obvious quality concerns.
MerguezMan wrote: »I don't see that fit in a 1.5/2 hours movie, so that means we'd have either a super-long intro probably butchering the lore, or no lore exposition at all, letting people guess what characters are (ie. try to guess who Gandalf is exactly by only watching the movie, then check the lore and see if you got it right...).
I don't think a movie has to include every single detail of background lore. You always have that problem when it comes to movies based on books (well, at least if it's a complex work). I think it's totally acceptable to show viewers a part, a story within a world and expect them to inform themselves if they want to know more.
I was thinking the same thing.
Look at Star Wars for example. It's a bit different because the majority of the lore came later, but it comes to the same thing. In A New Hope we're told exactly 3 things about Kessel: there are spice mines (we aren't told what spice is), C3-PO doesn't want to be sent there, and getting there in under 12 parsecs is impressive, and that's all you need to know for the plot of that film. All the other details which came later (including why finding a shorter route through space is impressive) don't matter to the story that's actually being told in that movie so you don't miss anything by not having them included.
The words 'kyber crystal' don't appear in a film until Rogue One. Most fans knew there was some type of crystal inside lightsabers and again a lot of the books, comics etc. went into more detail (although some of the older ones said any crystal could work) but it was never relevant to the plot of the movies so it wasn't included and the stories didn't lose anything as a result.
It's already the same with the Elder Scrolls games. All the stuff about the Tribunal and the good and bad daedra didn't appear in Arena or Daggerfall because it was written for Morrowind, then it's barely mentioned in Oblivion and Skyrim because it's not as important to their plot. Each game has it's own focus and priorities and covers the relevant info with everything else relegated to optional books. A film wouldn't have the books of course, but the info would still be there for fans who want to know.
TooWeak2Live wrote: »I mean, ZOS has been killing it with the cinematic trailers. It's a shame they bear almost no resemblance to actual game play, but it seems like they might be able to make some longer content. They might even do a better job with that than the actual game...
But only if Velidreth is in it.