Support NeoGAF

[Lilalaunebaer]

Oh man, this is too good. I can´t.

After the trailer i was like, huh, this doesn´t even look that bad. Maybe this time.

Oh.

Ohhh...

 

[AquaWateria]

I thought it's been said that the movie won't be a 1 to 1 adaption of the game. So I honestly don't understand why people are complaining about the present day being longer than the past. It's not going to be like the video game where you have 10 hours to focus on everything. This movie will likely be an hour and a half so they don't have the luxury to focus on the past only. Also just because the present was boring in the game doesn't mean it will be the same for the movie because video game doesn't equal movie.

You need to realize this movie isn't just for the video gamers but actually for the mainstream audience as well. They are trying to focus on the present where the actual man character is so the audience can actually care. Plus if they're trying to set up a universe for this series then focusing on the present makes sense.

Yes this movie could turn out to be actual shit but claiming the present day in the movie will be the same as the videogame imo is kinda ignorant.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Honestly the reactions in this thread makes me think it's the other way around

I think the problem comes from the fear that the majority of the movie is gonna take place in the Abstergo building. It's gonna be a lot of telling and not showing.

 

[Blade30]

I thought it's been said that the movie won't be a 1 to 1 adaption of the game. So I honestly don't understand why people are complaining about the present day being longer than the past. It's not going to be like the video game where you have 10 hours to focus on everything. This movie will likely be an hour and a half so they don't have the luxury to focus on the past only. Also just because the present was boring in the game doesn't mean it will be the same for the movie because video game doesn't equal movie.

You need to realize this movie isn't just for the video gamers but actually for the mainstream audience as well. They are trying to focus on the present where the actual man character is so the audience can actually care. Plus if they're trying to set up a universe for this series then focusing on the present makes sense.

Yes this movie could turn out to be actual shit but claiming the present day in the movie will be the same as the videogame imo is kinda ignorant.

Yep. The Present day aspect is basically the legs/foundation of the movie. I don't think this is a bad thing, although I didn't like the modern stuff in the game it doesn't mean it will be 1:1 the same in the movie.

 

[metsallica]

And Day 1 became Day None. Trailer was already mediocre, this just seals it. Had such high hopes after Macbeth, too.

Spoiler

Sort of joking... Will wait for more news. Still, very disappointed by this. The Abstergo stuff is awful in the games.

 

[Blade30]

Spoiler

Sort of joking... Will wait for more news. Still, very disappointed by this. The Abstergo stuff is awful in the games.

Because you had almost nothing to do in the present day world except for walking (later climbing) and talking.

 

[CloudWolf]

I'm actually not surprised. You're not casting Jeremy Irons and Marion Cotillard to just have them show up in the beginning and end of the film.

Sometime I admire people who edit movies trailer. The difference between the trailers and movies themselves is night and day

Obligatory Onion video

 

[megalowho]

That ratio makes sense to me for adapting AC into a movie. More Sci-Fi conspiracy origin story than straightforward historical epic, with fake Desmond's arc being the focus. If the ratio was kept the same as the games the core premise would be underdeveloped and the meat of the film (Spanish Inquisition) ultimately meaningless.

 

[LegendofLex]

You and me both. The future segments have always been the worst part of Assassin's Creed games.

I think the biggest reason for this is that the future segments routinely miss the point of the games: running around like a badass in _insert_setting_of_your_choice_here_.

This will probably be more prevalent in the movie.

When I first saw the game and heard about the reliving memories premise, I imagined that there'd be a companion to the historical gameplay where you visit the same settings in the present, trying to follow in your predecessor's footsteps to uncover whatever secrets they kept hidden.

In the end, this was relegated mostly to cutscenes. That's what ultimately disappointed me about the present-day stuff.

 

[More_Badass]

I think the problem is that some want a video game movie, not a movie based on a video game. A live action greatest hits, style and kills and the cool stuff because it's just a video game movie, something for the fans

Rather than wanting a film that takes the spirit and essence of the source material and makes it work in another medium. And the present/future side of Assassins Creed is as part of the series as the past. The only reason you even play in the past is because what's happening in the present.

The games can ignore it, but the movies needs to explain and embrace it because that's the only way to make a series that can introduce different characters and eras without feeling like a disjointed mess. The present Animus stuff ties all together

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Since this is the first AC movie, it might makes sense to spend more time in the present than in the past. Kinda like in an origin story, the superhero doesn't put his costume or use his power in the first half of the movie.

No one likes origin stories. Moreover, you don't spend $200 million on the superhero origin story.

And you know, escape attempts, probably test fighting against other Animus-trained captives, Asterbgo intrigue, info on the First Civilization, modern-day Fassbender kicking ass when he finally breaks out using all his Assassin skills

Don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, don't care, all I want is some guy in a hoodie with a finger blade stabbing soldiers in the neck while jumping off buildings. Making the movie about things other than that is like making The Matrix: Reloaded.

 

[border]

I think the problem is that it is very difficult to elevate the stakes of a man playing in a VR simulation of the past. Who cares if he lives or dies in a computer simulation? He can just try it over again. You'd essentially be making a movie about a man playing a videogame.

It's funny how with every Assassin's Creed game there were consistently complaints about how the Desmond/Abstergo storyline was going nowhere. Now the movie actually tries to address that and now everyone complains that it's not enough historical action.

 

[More_Badass]

No one likes origin stories. Moreover, you don't spend $200 million on the superhero origin story.

More of a high-concept sci-fi action movie than an origin movie. Even The Matrix and Inception had to explain their tech and concepts and other worlds

 

[Ivan 3414]

I think the problem is that some want a video game movie, not a movie based on a video game. A live action greatest hits, style and kills and the cool stuff because it's just a video game movie, something for the fans

Rather than wanting a film that takes the spirit and essence of the source material and makes it work in another medium. And the present/future side of Assassins Creed is as part of the series as the past. The only reason you even play in the past is because what's happening in the present.

The games can ignore it, but the movies needs to explain and embrace it because that's the only way to make a series that can introduce different characters and eras without feeling like a disjointed mess. The present Animus stuff ties all together

Exactly. Narratively it's pretty much impossible to connect the AC games as a series if they were exclusively set in the past. Desmond's ancestors have virtually nothing to do with each other. Unless people want to continue the video game movie streak of shitty plots, the Animus needs to come into play.

 

[JHall]

Ubisoft Cinematic Universe. I mean everyone else is doing it

I'm still holding on to hope for that Tom Hardy Splinter Cell movie.

 

[KingSnake]

At least there won't be aliens.....................

Spoiler

there probably gonna introduce aliens.

Who do you think the Templars are? It's all written in the Da Vinci Code.

 

[rdytoroll]

It's a bit disappointing to me, but ultimately we have to see the film to judge. I trust the director. Just take a look at Macbeth, such a superbly directed, shot, acted and edited film. It's spectacular, one of the most beautiful films I have seen in the past year. If he can keep up the quality of that film in Assassins Creed, we're in for a treat. And any movie starring Fassbender and Cotillard cant be bad

 

[Manu]

At least there won't be aliens.....................

Spoiler

there probably gonna introduce aliens.

I'm not sure why there would be, considering there are no aliens in the Assassin's Creed series.

Actually, every time I see someone mention aliens I know they haven't been paying attention.

 

[TheYanger]

I think the problem is that some want a video game movie, not a movie based on a video game. A live action greatest hits, style and kills and the cool stuff because it's just a video game movie, something for the fans

Rather than wanting a film that takes the spirit and essence of the source material and makes it work in another medium. And the present/future side of Assassins Creed is as part of the series as the past. The only reason you even play in the past is because what's happening in the present.

The games can ignore it, but the movies needs to explain and embrace it because that's the only way to make a series that can introduce different characters and eras without feeling like a disjointed mess. The present Animus stuff ties all together

You're bringing this stuff up a lot here, the reality is that it's a movie based on a source material, videogame or not, that is entirely contingent upon the past. Yes, plotwise what happens in the present is 'important' but only as a framing device. The story of AC2 is about Ezio getting revenge for his family, not Desmond sitting in the Animus. Heck, we have more ACs with near ZERO present day interaction than we do games with zero past interactions.

Even if you want to try to pretend that, because of the framing, present day is more 'important' to the plot, that is missing the forest for the trees when it comes to what people actually care about with this property. Yeah, they can make modern day interesting, shti they could make a movie with no actual past stuff and make it interesting, that's just called a sci fi modern day movie, but it's not Assassin's Creed when you do that. I mean you could make a Halo movie about a general sitting at a desk ordering Spartans around and then going home to his wife and complaining about how they're losing the war, make it a sad drama, It could even be a fantastic film, but it's not Halo at that point.

Calling out this movie for this misstep isn't making a judgement about the quality of the movie, it's making a judgement about them misunderstanding the source material and its appeal, which is a pretty big indictment of the filmmakers actually making something fans of the series what to watch.

 

[Kas]

I liked the present day parts of the AC games, except in 3, but in every other game from 1 to Black Flag, loved it.

Kinda thought it would be more a 70/30 past to present ratio, but okay.

 

[davepoobond]

Yet another video game movie that doesn't get what made the games popular.

Maybe it'll become the new Resident Evil series

 

[heliosRAzi]

I've never played any of the games, but are the present day stuff really important to the plot aside from just framing the story? Is there a reason why they can't just set it all in the past?

 

[Bit-Bit]

65% rotten tomatos, 35% fresh?

Best video game movie?

 

[Krixeus]

Assassin's Creed |OT| Days of 65% Future 35% Past

 

[TheYanger]

I've never played any of the games, but are the present day stuff really important to the plot aside from just framing the story? Is there a reason why they can't just set it all in the past?

No. I mean, they make it important in terms of framing, but each game has an actual plot with beginning middle and end in the past. The present day segments generally don't even have that.

 

[More_Badass]

I've never played any of the games, but are the present day stuff really important to the plot aside from just framing the story? Is there a reason why they can't just set it all in the past?

The whole reason there is past gameplay is because an apocalypse is coming and the present day groups are trying to stop it/exploit it. Narrative-wise, the past stuff is just a means for Abstergo to get information, while the main threat and motivations and reason behind everything is in the present.

No. I mean, they make it important in terms of framing, but each game has an actual plot with beginning middle and end in the past. The present day segments generally don't even have that.

Only because the past is where the gameplay is. The present day story is what drives everything, why the characters even care about the past.

 

[Doug Heffernan]

Desmond: The Movie.

 

[metsallica]

Because you had almost nothing to do in the present day world except for walking (later climbing) and talking.

My biggest problem was that it seemed like they were ramping up to totally awesome stuff in the present day setting... then they completely lost the plot, squandered everything, went to crazy-town, then doubled-down on the past and all-but dropped the present.

 

[TheYanger]

The whole reason there is past gameplay is because an apocalypse is coming and the present day groups are trying to stop it/exploit it. Narrative-wise, the past stuff is just a means for Abstergo to get information, while the main threat and motivations and reason behind everything is in the present.


Only because the past is where the gameplay is. The present day story is what drives everything, why the characters even care about the past.

You can frame any story with anything and make it seem more important. The past segments actually have complete stories, you literally could pluck the entire present day section out of each game and the game would be 100% fine. None of the story would stop working, it would all make perfect sense. The present day literally only exists to tie the different games together, not to improve each individual game.

Again, even if you somehow think the present day is SUPER important and the past is not (Which seems like playing devil's advocate at best), that is still NOT the part of the games that people actually care about. It's completely missing the point of Assassin's Creed to pretend that present day is what drives the series.

For a very real example, look at the Mario Bros movie, where suddenly the fact that they're plumbers is extremely important. You could argue that that is important in the game, They were plumbers and they entered a pipe and got pulled into this kingdom! They literally would not have gone on their adventure were it not for them being plumbers! Therefore, the entire games would not exist were it not for the heroic plumbing of the Mario Bros! Ludicrous right? But that's basically what you're saying about Assassin's Creed. The present day, framed as 'important' or not, exists to service the antics of the past, not vice versa. The game series doesn't exist if you strip out the past parts. Stripping out the present would alter it and I would argue the movie would be silly to try and do that too, but at the same time...the games HAVE basically done it before, and you can certainly still get mostly the same experience if you just cut those parts out.

 

[andythinkpad]

So basically movie adoptation of the shit part of the game.

 

[Blade30]

Yet another video game movie that doesn't get what made the games popular.

Maybe it'll become the new Resident Evil series

? The thing that makes AC (as games) great is the gameplay and setting, that's it. The concept of accessing and experience the memory of your ancestors (with parkours etc.) in the past is interesting enough to make a film about.

 

[heliosRAzi]

No. I mean, they make it important in terms of framing, but each game has an actual plot with beginning middle and end in the past. The present day segments generally don't even have that.

I see. The present day stuff doesn't really have that much bearing on the past stuff.

The whole reason there is past gameplay is because an apocalypse is coming and the present day groups are trying to stop it/exploit it. Narrative-wise, the past stuff is just a means for Abstergo to get information, while the main threat and motivations and reason behind everything is in the present.

This is also a criticism for the games, but do they really need that framing? I never understood why they had to put in present day stuff into the games when gamers just wanted it all to take place in the past because that is where all of the interesting things are happening. I thought the games all took place in the past until I got spoiled on the present day stuff.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[More_Badass]

You can frame any story with anything and make it seem more important. The past segments actually have complete stories, you literally could pluck the entire present day section out of each game and the game would be 100% fine. None of the story would stop working, it would all make perfect sense. The present day literally only exists to tie the different games together, not to improve each individual game.

Again, even if you somehow think the present day is SUPER important and the past is not (Which seems like playing devil's advocate at best), that is still NOT the part of the games that people actually care about. It's completely missing the point of Assassin's Creed to pretend that present day is what drives the series.

For a very real example, look at the Mario Bros movie, where suddenly the fact that they're plumbers is extremely important. You could argue that that is important in the game, They were plumbers and they entered a pipe and got pulled into this kingdom! They literally would not have gone on their adventure were it not for them being plumbers! Therefore, the entire games would not exist were it not for the heroic plumbing of the Mario Bros! Ludicrous right? But that's basically what you're saying about Assassin's Creed. The present day, framed as 'important' or not, exists to service the antics of the past, not vice versa. The game series doesn't exist if you strip out the past parts. Stripping out the present would alter it and I would argue the movie would be silly to try and do that too, but at the same time...the games HAVE basically done it before, and you can certainly still get mostly the same experience if you just cut those parts out.

This isn't a game for the fans, or only plucking what people care about and throwing it up on screen. Why do you think most movies based on video games are shit?

They're adapting Assassin's Creed to film. Like it or not, and the games sure forgot about it, but AC started as a sci-fi narrative with a historical action side. That's why the orignal plan was going to end with a game in the present day. That's what AC was building up to

Story wise, exploring the past is a means to drive the present forward. The only reason the past is the focus in the game is because...they're games. That's where the cool stuff is, so that's the gameplay needs to be. But a movie isn't 20 hours long and doesn't need to worry about if the player will be bored because they're not stabbing people. It can blend present and past in a efficient well-paced way to tell a story in 2 hours.

To make this work, they need to treat it like a Matrix or Inception. The present day drives the plot, the reason why the characters need to look at the past, gives urgency and meaning to those past sections. The "other world" - be it the Matrix or dreams or genetic memories - is the escape, the place where our normal protagonist can be something more. And then through that knowledge and training, the present day protagonist can escape/defeat the enemy/whatever

I see. The present day stuff doesn't really have that much bearing on the past stuff.


This is also a criticism for the games, but do they really need that framing? I never understood why they had to put in present day stuff into the games when gamers just wanted it all to take place in the past because that is where all of the interesting things are happening. I thought the games all took place in the past until I got spoiled on the present day stuff.

Thanks for clarifying.

Originally the sci-fi story was going to be much bigger to the point that the third game was going to be mainly present day.

But that's the thing. People just want Cool Game Stuff: The Movie, Ubisoft wants to make a coherent movie that marries the present and past how the games never could

 

[Timu]

They did and it was spectacular

Spectacularly bad, yes.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Who do you think the Templars are? It's all written in the Da Vinci Code.

I'm not sure why there would be, considering there are no aliens in the Assassin's Creed series.

Actually, every time I see someone mention aliens I know they haven't been paying attention.

Did you guys forget about the Apple of Eden? The First Civilization? Minerva?

 

[Strike00]

Deep down we all knew it was going to suck.

 

[God Dayumm]

This is going to be a romantic comedy, isn't it?

 

[Manu]

Did you guys forget about the Apple of Eden? The First Civilization? Minerva?

The first civilization aren't aliens. They're just ancient humans.

 

[ShironRedshift]

The whole reason there is past gameplay is because an apocalypse is coming and the present day groups are trying to stop it/exploit it. Narrative-wise, the past stuff is just a means for Abstergo to get information, while the main threat and motivations and reason behind everything is in the present.


Only because the past is where the gameplay is. The present day story is what drives everything, why the characters even care about the past.

Yes, in the games, that's true. But there's no reason they couldn't make a movie solely focused on Altair's or Ezio's or Connor's story. Each of their stories contains a self-contained conflict between the Assassins and Templars that is easily understood and digested without knowing any of the present-day stuff at all. The present-day stuff is just fluff that gets in the way of those self-contained stories and makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. Yes, you can provide a framing, as the games do, but there's no actual need to as all of those work by themselves and capture what people really love about the series.

I mean, it's kind of interesting to me to hear it argued that what's going on in the present really matters that much at all, considering Ubisoft themselves lost faith in that aspect of the series and have largely dropped it after they (very clumsily) wrapped up Desmond's story (which they didn't really have to do at all and could have kept stretching things out or found some way of giving Desmond more time or something if they wanted to, or any number of ways of ending his story other than the way they actually did, which has nothing to do with it being a game and was just kinda... bad through and through and didn't make any sense at all, and since people didn't enjoy an ending that was just bad and wasn't bad just because it was a video-game or anything like that, I'm not sure why people are supposed to be excited in a story building up to something we really have no reason to expect to end any differently), instead of finding some way to keep the present stuff going. If the present-day stuff is really so important to the series, why have Ubisoft have decreased its importance in the games themselves and increasingly focused on the past stuff? In the latest AC games, it's barely more than a few winks and nudges here and there to remind you that the present exists, but if it really was that important to the series, wouldn't Ubisoft have found a way to dedicate more time to it than that even post-Desmond, to make sure people understand it and how important it is if it truly is that important to the series, instead of more-or-less letting the past segments stand entirely on their own at this point?

This just doesn't seem like an honest or consistent argument to me when it doesn't it seem to be held by the game's creators at this point who seem to have taken the fan feedback into account by more or less excising the present segments which, wile it can be interpreted in a number of ways, definitely doesn't speak to the confidence they had in those segments or some vitality to understanding the past-segments or the inability of the past-segments to stand on their own.

 

[TheYanger]

This isn't a game for the fans, or only plucking what people care about and throwing it up on screen. Why do you think most movies based on video games are shit?

They're adapting Assassin's Creed to film. Like it or not, and the games sure forgot about it, but AC stared as a sci-fi narrative with a historical action side. That's why the orignal trilogy was going to end with a game in the present day. That's what AC was building up to

Story wise, exploring the past is to means to drive the present forward. The only reason the past is the focus in the game is because...they're games. That's where the cool stuff is, so that's the gameplay needs to be. But a movie isn't 20 hours long and doesn't need to worry about if the player will be bored because they're not stabbing people. It can blend present and past in a efficient well-paced way to tell a story in 2 hours.

To make this work, they need to treat it like a Matrix or Inception. The present day drives the plot, the reason why the characters need to look at the past, gives urgency and meaning to those past sections. The "other world" - be it the Matrix or dreams or genetic memories - is the escape, the place where our normal protagonist can be something more. And then through that knowledge and training, the present day protagonist can escape/defeat the enemy/whatever

"They're not making this for the fans" - then who is it for? What is the point in adapting a property to film if you're not going to leverage the property and its fanbase?

You say the games only focus on the past because gameplay, but that's bullshit - you could make the exact same game in any time frame, present, past, future, from a gameplay perspective that's completely irrelevant. The games have always very strongly relied on the fact that people are interested in the past. Saying "Oh it would have eventually had a future game" is pointless - they don't have a future or present day game. I mean at one point maybe they had plans to make a sci fi Zelda game too, but since they never did that's kind of meaningless as an assertion.

You don't need a present day narrative to make a past narrative make sense. Again, you keep saying you NEED the urgency of the present day, but you patently do not. What was the plot of Assassin's Creed 2? Ezio's revenge. That was the plot. The present day framing device was complete fluff. What was the plot of the first game? Altair discovering the betrayal from within the Assassins. What was the plot of any individual AC game? It's never the present day, it's always the past.

Here's the plot of basically every single present day segment of every AC game: "Hey we need MACGUFFIN X, go into your memories to when your ancestor did actual interesting things, and find out where it is" - insert entire past storyline for that game - "Yay now that you saw a cool storyline, we found MACGUFFIN X just in time for the next game"

It's a fucking joke to pretend that is the important part of the franchise.

The first civilization aren't aliens. They're just ancient humans.

No, humans were created by them. They're not the same thing. They're not aliens either (they're indigenous) but they're not just ancient humans.

 

[Sini]

New things they have to introduce are product placements they can't do in settings that are in the past.

 

[Manu]

I mean, it's kind of interesting to me to hear it argued that what's going on in the present really matters that much at all, considering Ubisoft themselves lost faith in that aspect of the series and have largely dropped it after they (very clumsily) wrapped up Desmond's story, instead of finding some way to keep the present stuff going. If the present-day stuff is really so important to the series, why have Ubisoft have decreased its importance in the games themselves and increasingly focused on the past stuff?

Because if they had followed the original plan, the series would be done in AC3, so no milking or annualization.

Basically, money.

 

[Boem]

The first civilization aren't aliens. They're just ancient humans.

I admit it's been years and I haven't played any of the games after Revelations, but I'm pretty sure they're aliens who guided early earth civilizations on earth after their own planet died. They had flashbacks and holograms of all that happening as well.

Edit: They meaning Minerva etc. Those weren't part of the first civilization, they just shaped it. Prevent earth from befalling the same fate as their home, and all that. I think. It's been a long time for me.

 

[NullPointer]

Thankfully this is a movie and thus freed from the constraints of having to making those gameplay sections engaging, and came focus on making that timeframe narratively-engaging

Aka one shouldn't be so quick to judgement

Exactly.

The change in medium offers up some opportunities.

 

[More_Badass]

Yes, in the games, that's true. But there's no reason they couldn't make a movie solely focused on Altair's or Ezio's or Connor's story. Each of their stories contains a self-contained conflict between the Assassins and Templars that is easily understood and digested without knowing any of the present-day stuff at all. The present-day stuff is just fluff that gets in the way of those self-contained stories and makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. Yes, you can provide a framing, as the games do, but there's no actual need to as all of those work by themselves and capture what people really love about the series.

I mean, it's kind of interesting to me to hear it argued that what's going on in the present really matters that much at all, considering Ubisoft themselves lost faith in that aspect of the series and have largely dropped it after they (very clumsily) wrapped up Desmond's story, instead of finding some way to keep the present stuff going. If the present-day stuff is really so important to the series, why have Ubisoft have decreased its importance in the games themselves and increasingly focused on the past stuff? In the latest AC games, it's barely more than a few winks and nudges here and there to remind you that the present exists, but if it really was that important to the series, wouldn't Ubisoft have found a way to dedicate more time to it than that even post-Desmond, to make sure people understand it and how important it is if it truly is that important to the series, instead of more-or-less letting the past segments stand entirely on their own at this point?

This just doesn't seem like an honest or consistent argument to me when it doesn't it seem to be held by the game's creators at this point who seem to have taken the fan feedback into account by more or less excising the present segments which, wile it can be interpreted in a number of ways, definitely doesn't speak to the confidence they had in those segments or some vitality to understanding the past-segments or the inability of the past-segments to stand on their own.

This isn't a game for fans, nor is it just about what people love from the games. It's a movie first for the general audience, based on the games.

This is Assassin's Creed from square one for people who have zero idea what Assassin's Creed is. Hence what is the Animus, why it is used, who are the Templars and Assassins, what are their goals, why do they care about the past, and so on

 

[TheYanger]

Exactly.

The change in medium offers up some opportunities.

Just because they can make an interesting movie in any setting doesn't mean it isn't missing the point to focus on that part of the story. Nobody is discounting that it means the movie sucks, but it certainly means it's failing to be Assassin's Creed.

This isn't a game for fans, nor is it just about what people love from the games. It's a movie first for the general audience, based on the games.

This is Assassin's Creed from square one for people who have zero idea what Assassin's Creed is. Hence what is the Animus, why it is used, who are the Templars and Assassins, what are their goals, why do they care about the past, and so on

They can just as easily make a movie that doesn't have an animus. Or explain the animus pretty quickly and easily. Hell, the early games spend like 15 cumulative minutes explaining the framing, and these are LONG games, I think a movie could do a better job in like 20 than you seem to think is necessary.

 

[NullPointer]

Just because they can make an interesting movie in any setting doesn't mean it isn't missing the point to focus on that part of the story. Nobody is discounting that it means the movie sucks, but it certainly means it's failing to be Assassin's Creed.

I disagree. Assassin's Creed is about the interplay between modern and historical. I think the focus on historical in the games has far more to do with gameplay considerations than narrative. The promise from the beginning was that we'd eventually be assassin's doing our assassin thing in a modern day setting, but the games never managed to nail that, or even get close to nailing it really.

The modern day stuff is exactly where I think a movie has an advantage in getting things right, or at least in making things compelling.

 

[TheYanger]

I disagree. Assassin's Creed is about the interplay between modern and historical. I think the focus on historical in the games has far more to do with gameplay considerations than narrative.

The modern day stuff is exactly where I think a movie has an advantage in getting things right, or at least in making things compelling.

For games that are 'about' the interplay, they sure don't spend much time on the modern day stuff. Or make the modern day stuff have much actual depth. I think it would be a mistake to discount that stuff completely, the games are certainly a mix of both, but it's literal pants on head to pretend that people don't want or expect more of the past from this series.

 

[More_Badass]

Just because they can make an interesting movie in any setting doesn't mean it isn't missing the point to focus on that part of the story. Nobody is discounting that it means the movie sucks, but it certainly means it's failing to be Assassin's Creed.

I think it's more fans just wanted the past so the games moves to focus on that despite the series starting with the goal of focusing more and more on the present day. That was whole point of Desmond and the bleeding effects, to eventually have a mainly present day AC game

The movie doesnt have to make fans happy for 15 hours and thus can focus on what the story was originally about: a sci-fi story where the exploration of the past is crucial to saving the future

 

[NullPointer]

For games that are 'about' the interplay, they sure don't spend much time on the modern day stuff.

Because pulling off that gameplay in a modern setting would be a *lot* more work.

Historical settings have the benefit of being smaller in scale and heights and tech, and focused more on melee and fisticuffs than firearms.