Support NeoGAF

[TheYanger]

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 focused more on melee and fisticuffs than firearms.

What? It wouldn't be any more work. There's no reason at all they can't make modern games that don't focus on firearms, games do that all the time. You can literally just change the art to be 'modern' and make the exact same game.

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

Claiming the 'original intent' was to move to present day means literally nothing when the series never went that direction. This isn't a movie from some alternate universe where that happened, this is from our universe where the present day stuff is virtually meaningless.

 

[BewareTheBatsie]

I hope this doesn't affect the movies quality. I would like to think that it's a unique take but at the same time no one plays an Assassin's Creed game for the present day aspects, you
play it to be some assassin in a time period exploring sites in the old days.

If the present still includes good combat and good climbing stuff, maybe I can forgive it.

 

[Manu]

I hope this doesn't affect the movies quality. I would like to think that it's a unique take but at the same time no one plays an Assassin's Creed game for the present day aspects, you
play it to be some assassin in a time period exploring sites in the old days.

If the present still includes good combat and good climbing stuff, maybe I can forgive it.

It won't affect it. The movie could still be shit, but it won't be because of this.

 

[More_Badass]

Claiming the 'original intent' was to move to present day means literally nothing when the series never went that direction.

It does now. Becaus that's clearly what the movie is doing. Basically forget everything that the game did and how the series changed and whatnot, because it doesn't matter for the film

This is Assassin's Creed from square one.

Seriously, the movie being less like the games and doing its own thing as much as possible is the best decision Ubisoft made

 

[NullPointer]

What? It wouldn't be any more work. There's no reason at all they can't make modern games that don't focus on firearms, games do that all the time. You can literally just change the art to be 'modern' and make the exact same game.

We live on different planets when it comes to this. I couldn't disagree more.

Copy and paste into a modern setting would not work. Like at all. Not with skyscrapers and cameras and modern security and guns. It'd be a different game, more like splinter cell than AC.

 

[TheYanger]

It does now. Becaus that's clearly what the movie is doing. Basically forget everything that the game did and how the series changed and whatnot, because it doesn't matter in the film

Seriously, the movie being less like the games and doing its own thing as much as possible is the best decision Ubisoft made

No, but like I said you can make a movie about anything. That's not the point of using a property that people associate with something else though.

Saying it's the best decision they can make is effing preposterous. You haven't seen the movie any more than I have, it's just as likely that the present day sections are terrible and it's the worst decision they made.

We live on different planets when it comes to this. I couldn't disagree more.

Copy and paste into a modern setting would not work. Like at all. Not with skyscrapers and cameras and modern security and guns. It'd be a different game, more like splinter cell than AC.

It must be awful to have such a limited view of what a game can and cannot do I guess? I mean, Street Fighter is modern and doesn't rely on guns. How many games are there where people are basically cybernetic ninjas running around slicing dudes? The setting is whatever they want it to be. Hell, I've played Syndicate where I'm running around in World War 2 cutting peoples throats, the fact that it's an era with guns and tanks and planes barely has any impact at all, because they don't choose to make it so.

 

[Lashley]

Any hype I had has just evaporated

 

[Crossing Eden]

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.

It's weird to see this being said when AC is all about a mix of both. Not just the past segments. It's not Assassin's Creed without both. Syndicate having CG cutscenes was due to a lack of time for polished MD gameplay.

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm fine with this. The videogame uses the animus as a framing device for a historical epic and rather cryptically avoids the real world setting most of the time.

A proper Assassin's Creed movie exploring it's unique aspects wont do this. Its going have to focus on the modern character, those who have imprisioned him and why, and the very concept of the animus, with dives into history to support the main plot.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

It does now. Becaus that's clearly what the movie is doing. Basically forget everything that the game did and how the series changed and whatnot, because it doesn't matter for the film

This is Assassin's Creed from square one.

Seriously, the movie being less like the games and doing its own thing as much as possible is the best decision Ubisoft made

Basically, don't mention Desmond, the Apple, Lucy, Warren, etc. Fix what made the game's story complicated. That could make the modern day stuff more interesting. But I feel like the past plays an important role. The movie should at least be going for about 50/50 of representing both the past and modern. If it's too much like The Matrix then copy The Matrix.

 

[More_Badass]

No, but like I said you can make a movie about anything. That's not the point of using a property that people associate with something else though.

Saying it's the best decision they can make is effing preposterous. You haven't seen the movie any more than I have, it's just as likely that the present day sections are terrible and it's the worst decision they made.

The vast majority of people who will see this won't associate the property with something else because the general audience isn't the Assassins Creed fanbase. This is all new to them.

 

[TheYanger]

The vast majority of people who will see this won't associate the property with something else because the general audience isn't the Assassins Creed fanbase. This is all new to them.

Again, if you're not trying to appeal to the people that the franchise actually means something to, you don't need to make a movie based on it in the first place. Saying "Oh the general audience isn't familiar with AC" doesn't mean you make something that is wildly out of the wheelhouse of what fans expect. That's just insulting to fans AND it means now you've got an IP that people see and go "Oh, I don't play that assassins creed game" and ignore. Or AT BEST are completely ignorant to and don't realize it's based on a game.

That's like making a comic book movie that shits all over the comic property, that usually works out so well too. It's entirely possible to make something that is both appealing and respectful to fans of the previous work, while also being friendly to newcomers.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

The vast majority of people who will see this won't associate the property with something else because the general audience isn't the Assassins Creed fanbase. This is all new to them.

This argument is always used for poor videogame adpatations and never makes sense. If it's not for fans of the game why spend the money licensing the IP? And if it is for fans why diverge enough from the game to disinterst fans?

 

[KeyBladerXIII]

I'm fine with this. The videogame uses the animus as a framing device for a historical epic and rather cryptically avoids the real world setting most of the time.

A proper Assassin's Creed movie exploring it's unique aspects wont do this. Its going have to focus on the modern character, those who have imprisioned him and why, and the very concept of the animus, with dives into history to support the main plot.

Agreed, otherwise we'd end up with 5 different movies about 5 different assassins that have nothing connecting them other than Templars=bad, which is essentially how the games are now. This is the chance to get it right regarding the importance of the present-day setting.

 

[TheYanger]

Agreed, otherwise we'd end up with 5 different movies about 5 different assassins that have nothing connecting them other than Templars=bad, which is essentially how the games are now. This is the chance to get it right regarding the importance of the present-day setting.

You can have the present day without making it overwhelm the movie. Somehow the games manage to tell their entire present day stories in like, sub 15 minutes apiece. Over the course of 20-30 hour games.

 

[MarkMclovin]

Sequels planned then.

 

[More_Badass]

Again, if you're not trying to appeal to the people that the franchise actually means something to, you don't need to make a movie based on it in the first place. Saying "Oh the general audience isn't familiar with AC" doesn't mean you make something that is wildly out of the wheelhouse of what fans expect. That's just insulting to fans AND it means now you've got an IP that people see and go "Oh, I don't play that assassins creed game" and ignore. Or AT BEST are completely ignorant to and don't realize it's based on a game.

That's like making a comic book movie that shits all over the comic property, that usually works out so well too. It's entirely possible to make something that is both appealing and respectful to fans of the previous work, while also being friendly to newcomers.

Basically this is the Civil War of video game movies, not in quality but in execution, Take the name and very bare bone premise of the story and then do your own thing

Much like Civil War had little to do with the comics besides the idea of heroes split on registration, and then cut up, condensed, twisted, mixed up the comic story to make it work as a film, Assassin's Creed is taking the basic idea of two warring secret factions that use special tech to see past memories and learn about a way to stop/exploit a coming apocalypse, and then cutting up, condensing, twisting, mixing up the games to make it work as a film

This argument is always used for poor videogame adpatations and never makes sense. If it's not for fans of the game why spend the money licensing the IP? And if it is for fans why diverge enough from the game to disinterst fans?

Because it's an interesting idea that could work well as a movie

Most video games movies just throw stuff on screen because it's cool stuff from the games. Oh look, it's a licker. Oh, Pyramid Head is in this for some reason

Making it for the fans first is the worst way to make a good movie

 

[KeyBladerXIII]

You can have the present day without making it overwhelm the movie. Somehow the games manage to tell their entire present day stories in like, sub 15 minutes apiece. Over the course of 20-30 hour games.

I'm hoping for a more equal balance as well. For now, I'm not bothered by 65% in the present because it's the first movie and there's a lot of people who haven't played the games. Things need to be explained. I'm just trying to say that wishing for the movies to completely ignore the present would result in a disjointed and scattered franchise. That is, if this first movie is a sucess at all.

 

[Aztechnology]

Seems light on the past. I'd say more of a 50/50 split would be best. But I'll reserve judgement. The AC story at the start was about Abstergo and their movements and motivations in the modern day. If they need to go heavier on that to produce a decent and understandable narrative then so be it.

 

[Moonkid]

I honestly don't care, will judge the movie as it is.

 

[KingSnake]

The vast majority of people who will see this won't associate the property with something else because the general audience isn't the Assassins Creed fanbase. This is all new to them.

If the only scope of the movie is to have some bad ass fighting, explosions, romance, and good guys vs. bad guys in modern times, Watch_Dogs was the better franchise to use for this.

Assassin's Creed focusing on modern day is just a setup for another average modern day action movie. They should have invited also Melissa McCarthy to play in it.

Not that it shouldn't have a modern day plot, but that to occupy most of the movie makes it not really linked to AC franchise beside the name,

 

[Dyson Industries]

I called it. Safe to bin this one.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Fassbender is most definitely gonna have to carry this whole thing.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Fassbender is most definitely gonna have to carry this whole thing.

The director is legit good though, which makes the whole thing all the more surprising

 

[Deleted member 10571]

I called it. Safe to bin this one.

Yeah I'm going to trust your tag and my gut feeling here as well. I'm absolutely sure this thing will be a mess and not go over 30 on RT.

We need that blackboard png, edited to "movies that will elevate videogame films" or something.

 

[Lemaitre]

The director is legit good though, which makes the whole thing all the more surprising

$urprising you say?

 

[Alienous]

The future should bookend the film and appear at the middle. The story should be the character development of the protagonist in the past.

That, if anything, was what made it cool in Assassin's Creed. Getting absorbed in it then being pulled out infrequently.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Would have been more interesting as 95% past, 5% present (occasional glitches with a full reveal at end).

How would that work since millions of people have played AC and they know that twist?

 

[More_Badass]

The future should bookend the film and appear at the middle. The story should be the character development of the protagonist in the past.

Not if you're going to explore different eras and such. The present day character is the main protagonist. The past is to his benefit. It's his arc, as he learns new skills and becomes a trained assassin

 

[BocoDragon]

The future should bookend the film and appear at the middle. The story should be the character development of the protagonist in the past.

That, if anything, was what made it cool in Assassin's Creed. Getting absorbed in it then being pulled out infrequently.

The way I see it, a movie bookended by the modern day, and being pulled out infrequently to modern day, is a movie that is about 65% modern day.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

I knew the movie would be ass, this just confirms it.

Fassbender is most definitely gonna have to carry this whole thing.

He carried the Steve Jobs movie.

It still flopped.

 

[McBryBry]

God damnit Ubi WE DON'T WANT MODERN DAY WE WANT THE PAST THAT'S LITERALLY THE GOOD PART OF THIS SERIES

 

[Nokterian]

I knew the movie would be ass, this just confirms it.



He carried the Steve Jobs movie.

It still flopped.

Heh forgot about that one.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

I knew the movie would be ass, this just confirms it.



He carried the Steve Jobs movie.

It still flopped.

We got a good movie that was up for an Oscar though. And Kate Winslet also carried that movie.

 

[Sad Affleck]

Pass.

.

 

[Alienous]

Not if you're going to explore different eras and such. The present day character is the main protagonist. The past is to his benefit. It's his arc, as he learns new skills and becomes a trained assassin

Sorry, I could have written that more clearly. That's what I meant. "The protagonist" as in Fassbender's character, developing through being in the past. I'd like to see him grow there. Get caught up in the Assassins. Go after some big assassination target. It should be the pull of the movie, and the majority.

Avatar-like.

 

[AquaWateria]

I find it funny people are immediately saying it's going to be ass because the movie is focused more on the present than the past.

 

[Defect]

If only they did that with AC4 - Syndicate

Wonder what they are doing with the story since it's apparently canon.

 

[CaviarMeths]

I don't even understand why the future stuff is needed at all. It's never been a selling point of the game series, and this will be a 2 hour movie adapted from a 12-15 hour game. Just do a straight up assassin story set during the Spanish Inquisition without all the timey wimey fuckery.

 

[KingSnake]

I don't even understand why the future stuff is needed at all. It's never been a selling point of the game series, and this will be a 2 hour movie adapted from a 12-15 hour game. Just do a straight up assassin story set during the Spanish Inquisition without all the timey wimey fuckery.

Thinking more about it, might be just because the movies in historic settings don't really sell that much or Hollywood sucks at making them lately and they're playing safe by doing practically a normal average modern day action movie with just a spice of history. Unfortunately.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Thinking more about it, might be just because the movies in historic settings don't really sell that much or Hollywood sucks at making them lately and they're playing safe by doing practically a normal average modern day action movie with just a spice of history. Unfortunately.

That and a period piece set in that era would probably be too expensive.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

That and a period piece set in that era would probably be too expensive.

The few released pics we've seen look straight out of the Dorne scenes from Game of Thrones, how expensive could they be?

 

[Blade30]

I don't even understand why the future stuff is needed at all. It's never been a selling point of the game series, and this will be a 2 hour movie adapted from a 12-15 hour game. Just do a straight up assassin story set during the Spanish Inquisition without all the timey wimey fuckery.

You can't just make a movie series where it plays in different eras which is focusing mostly in the past just like the games, it needs to be connected (if they go for sequels) and have a plot as to why they use the animus and change between past and present day. Otherwise it would be just an anthology series with different settings and no real connections.

 

[KingSnake]

That and a period piece set in that era would probably be too expensive.

From the scene we saw it doesn't look that much of a quality.

Maybe they need to add dragons to be able to sell Spanish inquisition. Get Iwan Rheon to play the inquisitor.

You can't just make a movie series where it plays in different eras which is focusing mostly in the past just like the games, it needs to be connected (if they go for sequels) and have a plot as to why they use the animus and change between past and present day. Otherwise it would be just an anthology series with different settings and no real connections.

Nobody says that there should be 0 modern time scenes, just not two thirds of the movie. That's 80 minutes out of 120.

 

[EatinOlives]

I don't even understand why the future stuff is needed at all. It's never been a selling point of the game series, and this will be a 2 hour movie adapted from a 12-15 hour game. Just do a straight up assassin story set during the Spanish Inquisition without all the timey wimey fuckery.

1. This movie is not directly adapting any of the AC games.
2. Contrary to popular belief, the modern setting in the AC games is integral to the series and you can't have one without the other.

Only time will tell if the amount of modern-day stuff is too much.

Nobody says that there should be 0 modern time scenes, just not two thirds of the movie. That's 80 minutes out of 120.

How can you say that there's "too much" spent in X setting in Y movie if you haven't even seen the film? The modern-day segments in the games tend to be poorly received because they're light-on-gameplay, heavy-on-story semi-interactive cutscenes that only barely advances the overarching storyline in each game while simultaneously barely fleshing out any of its characters. But none of those criticisms are necessarily an issue when the story as a whole is adapted into a movie. A single 2-hour movie can advance the story as much or as little as it wants. There's no risk of "breaking up the pace" unless there movie itself is written poorly. The fact that 2/3rds of the movie takes place in X period of time really doesn't say anything about the quality of the film.

 

[Alienous]

The thing is I really want past character development. I'd want that cast to be fleshed out. I'd want the past timeline antagonist to be villain whose assassination we see planned in phases. Then being broken out of that at intervals and being told the modern story.

If they flipped those percentages it'd be a better fit, I'd say.

 

[heliosRAzi]

The few released pics we've seen look straight out of the Dorne scenes from Game of Thrones, how expensive could they be?

From the scene we saw it doesn't look that much of a quality.

Clearly, they aren't putting much effort into the past like they should. The money's all going to the present day stuff.

 

[Blade30]

Nobody says that there should be 0 modern time scenes, just not two thirds of the movie. That's 80 minutes out of 120.

Nobody? CaviarMeths suggest a straight up assasins story set in the past during the Spanish Inquisition. So what if the movie is 2/3 set in the present day? We don't know how the movie will be, it could be great, ok or bad, but it doesn't mean it will be boring during the 2/3 of the movie just because it's set in the modern day.

The first time I ever heard of Assassins Creed, I was really intrigued by the sci-fi time/memory travel aspect of the game only to be disappointed by the mediocre execution and lack of focus/interactivity in the modern day aspect. That doesn't mean it will be the same in the movie, heck it could be the exact opposite.

 

[Parham]

I'll reserve final judgement until I see the movie and all of that, but nothing about the present day in either the source material or what was shown in the movie's trailer has ever been remotely interesting.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Selling this to an average person if the balance was geared towards the past wouldn't work for a film. People would come out thinking "So it's like The Matrix or Inception but without the stakes." If the the premise was literally going back into the past, it could work with a different balance. But it's a simulation, which has the purpose of teaching him skills and getting information to be used in the present. I know the present day sections are sorta ass in the games, but that's a video game not a movie.

The trailer makes it pretty clear what happens. You see moments of him being proficient with a bow, you see the guards coming to subdue him, so the movie will probably end with a breakout attempt.

People don't mind playing the past sections of the games because that is the draw, you directly getting to interact with it and roleplay in that time period. You control what happens, so it doesn't really matter that it is a simulation. They've even played on that a bit with their meta commentary on making video games based off the experiences in the Animus. Films are different. There is another degree of separation. We would be watching someone roleplaying. Switching the balance more towards the past would be like making a movie that primarily is a dream sequence, and telling the audience right up front "None of this stuff is real and it has no impact on the present day, and the payoff (the revelations and skills gained) are going to be the smallest part of the film." Even something like Inception introduced things that would impact the characters outside of the dream, like being killed or going too deep into the dreams.