Support NeoGAF

[KingSnake]

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.

Ok, so some people. But most of the people understand the reasoning that modern time scenes link the story.

It doesn't matter if it's boring or not, there are hundreds of action movies set in modern times. It would be an AC just in name and that's all. But as I said, I understand that Hollywood is not capable to produce and sell a historic action movie.

 

[Khaliss]

My first reaction is why, WHY? But I remain curious how they're gonna keep the present day segments compelling or at least interesting...

In the games I never gave a shit about the present day segments. You're boring and bland Desmond; you're not even remotely interesting or cool.

We go through YOU to get to the cool stuff nothing more. You're just a conduit.

Wanted to see this in theaters but maybe I'll skip it.

 

[SmackAttack]

Well now the question becomes how much of present day is in Abstergo? Will he be stuck there, sneaking around, hacking and all that during that time before he goes back into the Animus? Will he break out during the film and we get action set pieces outside the facility?

 

[Khaliss]

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.

Goddamn it you're making some very strong & valid points.

I forgot about the average moviegoer who has no idea what Assassin's Creed is.

I just don't wanna see Fassbender in a high speed car chase for 10 minutes or in a back alley fight with 5 thugs throwing kicks.

Or in a bar scene drunk and contemplating his existence to Stan the barman.

 

[Discotheque]

it's not gonna be as boring as the game's present stuff since fassbender will be working with multiple animus trainees in these scenes and there seems to be a big action focus there too going by the trailer. still it's a damn shame there's not too much of the past. that stuff looks good in the trailer. far better than the present timeline.

 

[Acinixys]

35% action
65% unskippable cutscenes

Just like my AAA video games

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

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

Basically, money.

Doesn't this say everything about what fans expect from the film?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

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

Have we learned nothing at all from Fantastic Four, Deadpool, and Marvel in general?

 

[G-Fex]

And 100% dogshit.

I was going to say 100% boring as fuck but this is good too.

 

[More_Badass]

Have we learned nothing at all from Fantastic Four, Deadpool, and Marvel in general?

In a good way or bad? Your comment is kind of neural

 

[More_Badass]

I don't mind a much bigger present-day segment than the games, I would actually find it an interesting approach. That said, 65% set in the present is just way too bloated though. It should have been something like 40/60 or at maximum 50/50.

No one here can say that, because we haven't seen the movie or know how it's paced or structured

 

[Disgraced]

65% present, 35% past
5% pleasure, 50% pain

 

[Crossing Eden]

No one here can say that, because we haven't seen the movie or know how it's paced or structured

There are several impressions from people who have seen the first twenty minutes, very positive so far.

 

[TheYanger]

No one here can say that, because we haven't seen the movie or know how it's paced or structured

Yes, we can. We know the source material.

If the first X-men movie had been 65% Magneto 35% X-men it would've been bullshit as well, whether the movie was good or not.

 

[Lucian Cat]

Gonna watch for Fassbender regardless.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Yes, we can. We know the source material.

If the first X-men movie had been 65% Magneto 35% X-men it would've been bullshit as well, whether the movie was good or not.

No, you can't. This isn't an adaptation of a game, it's a movie based off the franchise. What works well and doesn't work well in the games has nothing to do with how a movie is written. The modern day sections have obviously never been something that the games put a large amount of effort into. The movie has motivation to make them important because those are the "real" characters they want you to care about.

Nobody can say that arbitrary percentages based off the shooting script before the movie has been edited are some magical doorway into predicting the quality of the film.

As cinematic as games are becoming, they aren't made the same way as films. There are usually different goals. It's not going to be structured like the games because it isn't a video game, it's a movie.

 

[Fret]

this piece of information is literally meaningless. the present day sections of the movie could be the best part, who knows?

 

[23qwerty]

Present day part of Ass Creed works well for a movie but is terrible for the games. Just give us ass creed games without the present day bs. No one wants to pretend to be someone pretending to be an assassin

 

[Jedi2016]

Didn't they just say something the other day about "truly understanding the games" and "wanting to do it proper justice" or some such? You know, the games that are about 2% present, 98% past? The past, where the actual fucking story takes place?

 

[TheYanger]

No, you can't. This isn't an adaptation of a game, it's a movie based off the franchise. What works well and doesn't work well in the games has nothing to do with how a movie is written. The modern day sections have obviously never been something that the games put a large amount of effort into. The movie has motivation to make them important because those are the "real" characters they want you to care about.

Nobody can say that arbitrary percentages based off the shooting script before the movie has been edited are some magical doorway into predicting the quality of the film.

As cinematic as games are becoming, they aren't made the same way as films. There are usually different goals. It's not going to be structured like the games because it isn't a video game, it's a movie.

Nobody has said it means anything about the quality of the film. It means the filmmakers have a complete lack of understanding about what is appealing about the franchise though, which doesn't bode well for it being a good ASSASSINS CREED film. If you want to make a good film that isn't Assassin's Creed, don't call it Assassin's Creed. Just like the X-men example I gave: There's no reason a Magneto movie couldn't be good, but you call it Magneto, not X-men. Even then it's a terrible idea to do something like that for the first in the franchise, when you're literally making the movie specifically to pull on the brand recognition. It's hard to garner goodwill from that when people don't actually recognize the brand when they go see the movie ("What is this shit? why are we still in the present 40 minutes into the movie? Who cares about this part?")

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Present day part of Ass Creed works well for a movie but is terrible for the games. Just give us ass creed games without the present day bs. No one wants to pretend to be someone pretending to be an assassin

Exactly. You don't want to be the modern day protagonist when they're just some guy. Maybe you want to be them when they have their awesome new assassin skills. It's the same reason why watching someone go through a simulation would be boring. It would be like having the training montages in The Matrix be the majority of the movie. No, you want to see have kung fu and be a bad ass. And even in that example, The Matrix is somewhat real since death within it is possible.

The Animus is a simulation of events that have already happened. The purpose is knowledge and skills. The way to make that interesting to a viewer is seeing those skills used in a place where they actually have an impact and some permanence.

 

[TheYanger]

Exactly. You don't want to be the modern day protagonist when they're just some guy. Maybe you want to be them when they have their awesome new assassin skills. It's the same reason why watching someone go through a simulation would be boring. It would be like having the training montages in The Matrix be the majority of the movie. No, you want to see have kung fu and be a bad ass. And even in that example, The Matrix is somewhat real since death within it is possible.

The Animus is a simulation of events that have already happened. The purpose is knowledge and skills. The way to make that interesting to a viewer is seeing those skills used in a place where they actually have an impact and some permanence.

You know what part of the story has those skills used with impact and permanence? The past parts, that people actually care about.

 

[MrToughPants]

Disappointing. Will Netflix and chill this one, while taking the odd peak at Assenbender

 

[More_Badass]

Nobody has said it means anything about the quality of the film. It means the filmmakers have a complete lack of understanding about what is appealing about the franchise though, which doesn't bode well for it being a good ASSASSINS CREED film. If you want to make a good film that isn't Assassin's Creed, don't call it Assassin's Creed. Just like the X-men example I gave: There's no reason a Magneto movie couldn't be good, but you call it Magneto, not X-men. Even then it's a terrible idea to do something like that for the first in the franchise, when you're literally making the movie specifically to pull on the brand recognition. It's hard to garner goodwill from that when people don't actually recognize the brand when they go see the movie ("What is this shit? why are we still in the present 40 minutes into the movie? Who cares about this part?")

A better analogy would be an X Men movie were most of the movie took place in Danger Room simulations.

You know what part of the story has those skills used with impact and permanence? The past parts, that people actually care about.

They care about it because the games have done the modern day sections poorly. A movie has none of those issues or baggage

The whole reason the Animus exists is to 1) gain knowledge to drive the present plot forward and 2) so the modern-day protagonist gains the skills of an Assassin

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Nobody has said it means anything about the quality of the film. It means the filmmakers have a complete lack of understanding about what is appealing about the franchise though, which doesn't bode well for it being a good ASSASSINS CREED film. If you want to make a good film that isn't Assassin's Creed, don't call it Assassin's Creed.

That's appealing in a video game. Their responsibility is to take the franchise and turn it into a compelling film. The viewer does not have control over what happens in a film, the experience is totally different.

Someone that has never played the game should be able to see this and enjoy it. Their job is to take key elements of the games and figure out how to fit that into the framework of a film. There are going to be changes and tweaks. The balance of modern day to animus sections is obviously one they thought that was better narrative decision. If the movie was 5 minutes of setup and then 2 hours of him jumping around a simulation and the ended with him having skills, it would be rubbish. It's a simulation, you have to make that interesting in some way. Otherwise people won't care about what's going on in-between. You have to establish why any of this is important. For what purpose is this? The driving force is outside of the simulation so that's presumably why they would balance the movie this way.

When was the last time you saw a movie that said "Hey, the next 2 hours isn't real. Keep watching though." Even something like Inception has massive amounts of setup and ups the stakes so the viewer still cares about what is happening.

 

[TheYanger]

A better analogy would be an X Men movie were most of the movie took place in Danger Room simulations.

If it was normal for every X-men story to take place 95% within a danger room simulation, then we should expect that from an X-men film as well, yes.

That's appealing in a video game. Their responsibility is to take the franchise and turn it into a compelling film. The viewer does not have control over what happens in a film, the experience is totally different.

Someone that has never played the game should be able to see this and enjoy it. Their job is to take key elements of the games and figure out how to fit that into the framework of a film. There are going to be changes and tweaks. The balance of modern day to animus sections is obviously one they thought that was better narrative decision. If the movie was 5 minutes of setup and then 2 hours of him jumping around a simulation and the ended with him having skills, it would be rubbish. It's a simulation, you have to make that interesting in some way. Otherwise people won't care about what's going on in-between. You have to establish why any of this is important. For what purpose is this? The driving force is outside of the simulation so that's presumably why they would balance the movie this way.

When was the last time you saw a movie that said "Hey, the next 2 hours isn't real. Keep watching though." Even something like Inception has massive amounts of setup and ups the stakes so the viewer still cares about what is happening.

This is an awful argument. By that logic any movie that has a flashback can't be interesting or important, any movie with any 'past' segment might as well not tell it. The point is, the reason people care about assassin's creed has very little to do with the present day. If you think nobody could possibly write a story that is interesting without mostly taking place in the present, I don't know what to tell you, that's just factually wrong. If that part of the story couldn't stand without overwhelming the fiction, then EVERY SINGLE GAME in the series would not have worked, while I won't claim they're monoliths of writing by any stretch, it's not because they didn't give enough of the present day stuff weight.

Again, look at the Ezio trilogy. NOBODY GAVE A FUCK about Desmond, and yes Ezio entirely took place in the past, and yet peoples till connected with him and were interested in his story and how it would resolve in each game. That's because good storytelling is its own reason to exist.

The film SHOULD have both aspects, because I do believe both 'are' Assassin's Creed, but if you have to lean one way it has to be towards the part that actually make the games interesting, which is not the present nor has it ever been.

 

[More_Badass]

If it was normal for every X-men story to take place 95% within a danger room simulation, then we should expect that from an X-men film as well, yes.

You're comparing a passive narrative-driven medium being adapting into another passive narrative-driven medium and an interactive gameplay-driven medium being adapted into a passive narrative-driven medium

The gameplay of the game is 95% past, because they have to be because it's a video game, but within the story and overall narrative structure of the series, the Animus is just a means to an end for the present day groups to get what they want and train the modern day protagonist

 

[TheYanger]

You're comparing a passive narrative-driven medium being adapting into another passive narrative-driven medium, and an interactive gameplay-driven medium being adapted into a passive narrative-driven medium

The gameplay of the game is 95% past, because they have to be because it's a video game, but within the story and overall narrative structure of the series, the Animus is just a means to an end for the present day groups to get what they want and train the modern day protagonist

Not this again.
A) 95% of the NARRATIVE takes place in the past, not just the gameplay.
B) If they wanted to make AC that had no 'past' elements, they could, it's not like the gameplay of Assassin's Creed is intrinsicly impossible in any other setting. You could make it about fucking aliens and it would still be fine, so saying "They have to because it's the gameplay" is bullshit. There are tons of modern games that are along the same vein, you don't have to have helicopters and machine guns just because it's not an ancient times setting.

 

[Crossing Eden]

You know what part of the story has those skills used with impact and permanence? The past parts, that people actually care about.

Actually no, the modern day moments have more permanence since the past parts already happened. As the recent comic says, you can't just respawn and try again.

 

[TheYanger]

Actually no, the modern day moments have more permanence since the past parts already happened. As the recent comic says, you can't just respawn and try again.

What does respawning have to do with a film? Or a videogame (Since you can respawn during present day sections if you can be killed too, it's a trope of videogames in general).

I mean, you understand that the Animus in the games isn't actually supposed to be you 'playing' the game tiher right? It's reliving the memories that happened, that are set in stone, so you shouldn't be respawning there - they let you do that because it's a video game and they have to let you control things otherwise it would be a film. I guess my point is mostly that your point is so far missing the point it's not even in the ballpark.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

If it was normal for every X-men story to take place 95% within a danger room simulation, then we should expect that from an X-men film as well, yes.



This is an awful argument. By that logic any movie that has a flashback can't be interesting or important, any movie with any 'past' segment might as well not tell it. The point is, the reason people care about assassin's creed has very little to do with the present day. If you think nobody could possibly write a story that is interesting without mostly taking place in the present, I don't know what to tell you, that's just factually wrong. If that part of the story couldn't stand without overwhelming the fiction, then EVERY SINGLE GAME in the series would not have worked, while I won't claim they're monoliths of writing by any stretch, it's not because they didn't give enough of the present day stuff weight.

Again, look at the Ezio trilogy. NOBODY GAVE A FUCK about Desmond, and yes Ezio entirely took place in the past, and yet peoples till connected with him and were interested in his story and how it would resolve in each game. That's because good storytelling is its own reason to exist.

The film SHOULD have both aspects, because I do believe both 'are' Assassin's Creed, but if you have to lean one way it has to be towards the part that actually make the games interesting, which is not the present nor has it ever been.

Flashbacks fill in information so we know more about characters in the present. That literally has nothing to do with what I'm saying. And flashbacks ACTUALLY happened.

The animus is a simulation. As in not real. Give me a movie where they specifically have told you that the rest of the movie isn't real, but that you should still care about what's going on. There is always going to be some anchor to the "real" world. Like dying in the simulation kills you in real life or if he was actually changing the past and not reliving it.

Video games aren't movies. Watching someone roleplay without stakes is totally different from you being the one to control what happens. The past sections in the games are the attraction, obviously. But that's because you get to control the actions in them. You're not passively watching a film about a guy putting on a VR helmet.

 

[fader]

65% cheap, 35% expensive

that pretty much what its about

 

[TheYanger]

Flashbacks fill in information so we know more about characters in the present. That literally has nothing to do with what I'm saying. And flashbacks ACTUALLY happened.

The animus is a simulation. As in not real. Give me a movie where they specifically have told you that the rest of the movie isn't real, but that you should still care about what's going on. There is always going to be some anchor to the "real" world. Like dying in the simulation kills you in real life or if he was actually changing the past and not reliving it.

Video games aren't movies. Watching someone roleplay without stakes is totally different from you being the one to control what happens. The past sections in the games are the attraction, obviously. But that's because you get to control the actions in them. You're not passively watching a film about a guy putting on a VR helmet.

The animus simulations ARE real though. That's in fact the very core of the story, you're reliving actual events. They're just a fancy technobabble flashback. Again, if that was how it worked nobody would give a fuck about Ezio's story, because 'well it happened in the past' - that's not how storytelling works. The story in the Animus is a story we, the viewer, or the player in the games, has not seen. The fact that it takes place 'hundreds of years ago' is completely irrelevant to whether that story has any stakes. Hell, Braveheart is based on a true story, I know for a fact the world did not end after that story, but it's still an engaging film because the story is interesting and entertaining.

Titanic would've been a fantastic film without any of the present day scenes. And yet, even with the present day scenes, we know FOR A FACT that the main character is a live and that the other main character is likely not. Despite this, it is GRIPPING. You know how much of the runtime Titanic spends on the modern day framing device? I sure don't but if you want me to pull it out I'll be 100 bucks it's below 20%.

 

[More_Badass]

Not this again.
A) 95% of the NARRATIVE takes place in the past, not just the gameplay.
B) If they wanted to make AC that had no 'past' elements, they could, it's not like the gameplay of Assassin's Creed is intrinsicly impossible in any other setting. You could make it about fucking aliens and it would still be fine, so saying "They have to because it's the past" is bullshit.

A) Here's the thing. That's for us. But in game, in universe, within the narrative and logic of the story, those hours of past-era narrative is all in service of the agendas of the present day Astergo and Assassins.

B) Not anymore because "exploring intricately detailed historical locations" is a core element of the series now. That's what people wanted, so they shifted their original plan of making a modern day Desmond assassin game and made games that essentially completely abandoned the present day.

 

[TheYanger]

A) Here's the thing. That's for us. But in game, in universe, within the narrative and logic of the story, those hours of past-era narrative is all in service of the agendas of the present day Astergo and Assassins.

B) Not anymore because "exploring intricately detailed historical locations" is a core element of the series now. That's what people wanted, so they shifted their original plan of making a modern day Desmond assassin game and making games that essentially completely abandoned the present day.

So what you're saying is, despite whatever someone might have wanted the series to be about, it IS in fact about being in the past. Ok gotcha. Glad we've caught up to what I asserted a page and a half ago. Nobody cares about the alternate reality where there is a Desmond game, in this reality there is not and the games are ABOUT THE PAST.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

The animus simulations ARE real though. That's in fact the very core of the story, you're reliving actual events. They're just a fancy technobabble flashback. Again, if that was how it worked nobody would give a fuck about Ezio's story, because 'well it happened in the past' - that's not how storytelling works.

But why is an audience that doesn't get to control what's going on supposed to care about that? We have our character in the present, they're reliving these memories to gain skills to be used the in present, right? So the ultimate goal is in the modern day. They're not real as far the protagonist in modern day is concerned. If they could hurt him or kill him, maybe. It's a time travel story without the danger or risk. Nothing can be changed since it happened. It makes sense to follow the modern day character more than the avatar in the past.

 

[Crossing Eden]

What does respawning have to do with a film? Or a videogame (Since you can respawn during present day sections if you can be killed too, it's a trope of videogames in general).

I mean, you understand that the Animus in the games isn't actually supposed to be you 'playing' the game tiher right? It's reliving the memories that happened, that are set in stone, so you shouldn't be respawning there - they let you do that because it's a video game and they have to let you control things otherwise it would be a film. I guess my point is mostly that your point is so far missing the point it's not even in the ballpark.

Again, your main complaint seems to be that the film is trying to be a film instead of a video game movie. The animus desychronizes when you go completely off track of what you ancestor would be doing, dying included. The main aim of the movie is narrative, and thus it can't be exactly like the games, it should also be noted that Ubisoft was incredibly involved with the project, think they know their franchise more so than people taking an arbitrary percentage of a movie as the sole indication of whether or not it'll be good.

 

[TheYanger]

But why is an audience that doesn't get to control what's going on supposed to care about that? We have our character in the present, they're reliving these memories to gain skills to be used the in present, right? So the ultimate goal is in the modern day. They're not real as far the protagonist in modern day is concerned. If they could hurt him or kill him, maybe. It's a time travel story without the danger or risk. Nothing can be changed since it happened. It makes sense to follow the modern day character more than the avatar in the past.

Again, you care about the past storyline because the past storyline is interesting. That's it. That's all you have to do to make the audience care about it: Make it interesting.

Again, your main complaint seems to be that the film is trying to be a film instead of a video game movie. The animus desychronizes when you go completely off track of what you ancestor would be doing, dying included. The main aim of the movie is narrative, and thus it can't be exactly like the games, it should also be noted that Ubisoft was incredibly involved with the project, think they know their franchise more so than people taking an arbitrary percentage of a movie as the sole indication of whether or not it'll be good.

No, what I'm saying is that the notion that the film couldn't somehow be a film without being 65% present day is preposterous, and completely misses what people enjoy about these games - an important point when you're making a movie designed to evoke the franchise.

Edit: Hell, I didn't know this, but the novels don't even have the present day parts of the series. If the novels can make the stories of Ezio and Altair interesting without ANY Desmond, why can't you guys understand that a movie could too? Or that it could insert a small framing device, just like the games, and still make them 'about' the part of the series people are interested in.

The more I think about it too, the more I'd love to hear a rebuttal about the Titanic comparison above. That film uses virtually the exact same framing device and ratios as the games and is a wildly acclaimed film. We essentially know the result before they ever start telling the past, which is more than we can say for AC (The only thing you know for sure about an AC past section is that the forebearer lives long enough to give birth to a child. That's literally all), and yet somehow the story is fantastic. Storytelling is about the journey.

 

[Crossing Eden]

No, what I'm saying is that the notion that the film couldn't somehow be a film without being 65% present day is preposterous, and completely misses what people enjoy about these games - an important point when you're making a movie designed to evoke the franchise.

It's better to be straight from the horse's mouth on this one, on why they're doing it this way.

http://www.gamesradar.com/assassins...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
"The modern day will be much bigger than in the game. We don’t know very much about Abstergo in the game – we know some but not much - but the movie will have more," Jean-Julien Baronnet said.
"I think it’s very important... this beautiful thing that we have in Assassin’s where you’re in the Animus and you are learning through the Animus, but what are you really? I think that we will try and achieve this on this movie, so we will see today’s hero character arc move each time he regresses, and understand from his ancestor who he is and what is his destiny."

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/2016/05/assassins-creed-movie-to-be-mostly-set-in-the-present-day/
Fassbender says, “There are certain things that we absolutely want to respect in the game, but we also want to bring new elements to the game. This isn’t a video game that we’re making. We’re trying to make a cinematic experience, so there are new things that we have to introduce."

http://m.ign.com/articles/2016/05/1...vie-doesnat-feature-any-video-game-characters
“We essentially did them all on our own because we wanted to have an original script,” said executive producer Pat Crowley. “It’s a movie that’s based on the game, but it’s not a movie that is the game.”
"It was about trying to inject a new character who can have some sort of relationship with the game perhaps in the future. It was essentially about finding a character that was fresh,” Kurzel said. “It’s an origin story too. It’s about a man that doesn’t realize he’s an Assassin in the present day and discovers that and discovers skills and discovers an identity and discovers that he’s part of a tribe. That became the real focus that we concentrated on. We needed, especially in the present day, a character that enabled us to do that."
To make sure their new storyline stayed true to the Assassin’s Creed franchise, Crowley and Kurzel worked closely with Ubisoft. They used Ubisoft’s encyclopedia of Assassin’s Creed rules, which included details like how much of an ancestor’s memories you can access and how you can’t change the past, to set up the framework of the script. Ubisoft ambassadors also would come to set to offer their approval. “[The movie] exists within the rules and the world that Ubisoft has set up that Assassin’s Creed can take place in,” said Crowley. “We just went ahead and created a new [story] that respected the rules, that a gamer could come and go, ‘I know this world.’”

 

[More_Badass]

So what you're saying is, despite whatever someone might have wanted the series to be about, it IS in fact about being in the past. Ok gotcha. Glad we've caught up to what I asserted a page and a half ago. Nobody cares about the alternate reality where there is a Desmond game, in this reality there is not and the games are ABOUT THE PAST.

Doesn't matter if the games are about the past now

The movie is making the present day a greater focus in the ways the newer games aren't.

Kind of how, say, the author of a comic book or novel can revisit events and do things differently in an adaptation of their work.

 

[- J - D -]

Part Future. Part Past. All Crap.

 

[TheYanger]

It's better to be straight from the horse's mouth on this one, on why they're doing it this way.

None of this is actually new information, we know that they're doing it and we know why, the point is that it's a stupid decision. Just like making a Halo movie based on a random soldier would be.

Doesn't matter if the games are about the past now

The movie is going with the original plan and making the present day a greater focus in the ways the newer games aren't.

Kind of how, say, the author of a comic book or novel can revisit events and do things differently in an adaptation of their work.

It does matter, because the entire discussion isn't 'they can't do that' but 'they shouldn't do that' - It's dumb to throw away what attracts people to a property if you're going to try to use that property to leverage an audience.

You can make a romantic comedy about Assassin's Creed too, but it's not what people want to see, so you're throwing good will into the trash. As fans it's maddening to see something like that because it's basically taking a chance to make something you'd actually want, and them just disrespecting the source so they can make something unrelated. Then if and when that thing is out, it has either

A) Failed, and you'll never get another one, or at least for a long time. so you still don't get a propper AC movie
B) Succeeeds, and now you've got a bunch of movies called Assassin's creed that don't actually match up with what someone who likes Assassin's Creed would want.

Surely you can understand how that is not going to be welcomed with open arms by the fans of the series.

Why do you think Marvel fans get so mad at shit like the Fantastic Four movies? Yeah they're making them, but they're insulting rather than enthralling, and they both ensure more movies don't get made, or ensure that the movies that do get made will be just as shit. Boy, what a combination.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Part Future. Part Past. All Crap.

Was this driveby really necessary dude? Super curious about the end goal here or if you had anything even remotely pertinent to the discussion?

None of this is actually new information, we know that they're doing it and we know why, the point is that it's a stupid decision. Just like making a Halo movie based on a random soldier would be.

Halo had a movie based on a different soldiers, it was actually quite decent. You've seen nothing but a trailer of the film yet have decided, despite the positive impressions from the first twenty minutes, that it's a stupid decision. ಠ_ಠ You should stop speaking for the vast majority of AC fans and that this isn't what some people might want. I mean even the creator agrees that the point was always the advancement of the modern day, and even with a reduced focus going into the past is always introduced as "We need to find out what these guys did" while the MD characters develop.

 

[- J - D -]

Was this driveby really necessary dude? Super curious about the end goal here or if you had anything even remotely pertinent to the discussion?

Sorry, Yves. I promise that I like the games.

 

[TheYanger]

Was this driveby really necessary dude? Super curious about the end goal here or if you had anything even remotely pertinent to the discussion?


Halo had a movie based on a different soldiers, it was actually quite decent. You've seen nothing but a trailer of the film yet have decided, despite the positive impressions from the first twenty minutes, that it's a stupid decision. ಠ_ಠ You should stop speaking for the vast majority of AC fans and that this isn't what some people might want.

I never said the film might not be good, I said it's not what people want from Assassin's Creed. You can say I don't represent the majority, and I don't, but this entire debate started because everyone in this thread was coming in and posting stuff like "Welp. waiting for Netflix now"

You guys want to know why? Because of that. People want ASSASSINS CREED not "This might have been the third assassin's creed game in another universe where the series moved counter to how it did in ours".

 

[fallengorn]

When they announced an AC movie, I wondered if they'd add the Abstergo nonsense. Then the trailer came out and it does have some of it. Now you're telling me the movie is mostly that stuff.

 

[NOLA_Gaffer]

 

[More_Badass]

None of this is actually new information, we know that they're doing it and we know why, the point is that it's a stupid decision. Just like making a Halo movie based on a random soldier would be.


It does matter, because the entire discussion isn't 'they can't do that' but 'they shouldn't do that' - It's dumb to throw away what attracts people to a property if you're going to try to use that property to leverage an audience.

You can make a romantic comedy about Assassin's Creed too, but it's not what people want to see, so you're throwing good will into the trash. As fans it's maddening to see something like that because it's basically taking a chance to make something you'd actually want, and them just disrespecting the source so they can make something unrelated. Then if and when that thing is out, it has either

A) Failed, and you'll never get another one, or at least for a long time. so you still don't get a propper AC movie
B) Succeeeds, and now you've got a bunch of movies called Assassin's creed that don't actually match up with what someone who likes Assassin's Creed would want.

Surely you can understand how that is not going to be welcomed with open arms by the fans of the series.

No, I think it's more that fans just want Cool Assassin Stuff: the Live-Action Cutscene and Ubisoft wants to make a movie that captures both the sci-fi and past aspects of the games, that introduces the entire premise to a new audience - Abstergo, the Animus, the bleeding effect, how the past and present are connected, etc. - and not just appease fans

 

[Drifters]

Basically we are getting a stealth Mirror's Edge movie with blades?

 

[TheYanger]

No, I think it's more that fans just want Cool Assassin Action: the Live-Action Cutscene and Ubisoft wants to make a movie that captures both the sci-fi and past aspects of the games, that introduces the entire premise to a new audience - Abstergo, the Animus, the bleeding effect, how the past and present are connected, etc. - and not just appease fans

Now we're back to the original point: You can do that without making it 65% of the part people don't care that much about and 35% about the part that people do.
Yes, you can make an interesting story this way, but it's swimming upstream for no reason since you can also make an interesting story the way that people actually want it to be made.