PDA

View Full Version : Why can't they make a movie like they do with the trailers? Why use real actors?



JanTwoSeven
10-14-2012, 06:13 PM
Why can't they make a movie like they do with the trailers? Why use real actors?

kriegerdesgottes
10-14-2012, 06:22 PM
I agree actually although the voice acting is still important but I wouldn't want a live action version of AC to be done again like with AC lineage. I'd rather them use full CG characters in a CG world and make a long movie out of it.

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:26 PM
because it would cost a hell of a lot of money

rileypoole1234
10-14-2012, 06:26 PM
I completely agree. I think the AC movie should be completely CG with the same voice actors and everything. Though if I had my way there'd be no AC movie...

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:29 PM
Why would you want no AC movie? What about the people who want an AC movie? You want to rid the world of a (legit) source of entertainment?

I can't wait for the AC movie.

JanTwoSeven
10-14-2012, 06:32 PM
Why would it cost more? Don't they have the resources already from making the games? I actually thought hiring actors would cost more.

kriegerdesgottes
10-14-2012, 06:34 PM
Why would you want no AC movie? What about the people who want an AC movie? You want to rid the world of a (legit) source of entertainment?

I can't wait for the AC movie.

I would rather have no movie as well actually because I'd rather have nothing as opposed to another abomination like Prince of Persia or the countless other video game movies that suck. Yes POP did suck and I love the Prince of Persia games.

HisSpiritLives
10-14-2012, 06:34 PM
Soo agreed tnx for opening this,it would be realy cool and when they first talked about film that crossed my mind,that would be soo cool and they could create Ezio Altair or Connor like they are in trailers in game . I would love Ubisoft to consider this.

HisSpiritLives
10-14-2012, 06:35 PM
I would rather have no movie as well actually because I'd rather have nothing as opposed to another abomination like Prince of Persia or the countless other video game movies that suck. Yes POP did suck and I love the Prince of Persia games.

AC film would be cool ,and if you remeber Prince of Persia wasnt animated there were real actors.

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:36 PM
Yea, but the AC movie shouldn't suck because it's actually being completely controlled by Ubisoft and not by Sony.. unlike the POP movie.

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:37 PM
Why would it cost more? Don't they have the resources already from making the games? I actually thought hiring actors would cost more.
Because CGI costs a lot, especially when it's as high quality as the AC trailers have been.

ACfan443
10-14-2012, 06:40 PM
Assassin's Creed has established itself as popular franchise, with its deep, enriching plots. If they make a terrible movie (Prince of Persia comes to mind) then what kind of image would that portray to newcomers? Personally, I dont want a movie. But if I had to pick, I'd choose CG over real actors.

JanTwoSeven
10-14-2012, 06:42 PM
LOL, that's the reason I want it in CGI, high quality.

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:45 PM
But the movie shouldn't be terrible because it's pretty much being produced by UbiSoft, it's just being published by Sony..

BBALive
10-14-2012, 06:45 PM
Money.

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:47 PM
And honestly, I like the CGI trailers, but I couldn't really watch a movie made out of solely CG!

Also, I hope you guys realize that they still use a lot of CGI in live-action movies.. I guarantee you it'll still be just as awesome as a live action movie as a CGI movie..

Also, think: Why hasn't there ever been a movie made solely out of CGI?

freddie_1897
10-14-2012, 06:47 PM
I would rather have no movie as well actually because I'd rather have nothing as opposed to another abomination like Prince of Persia or the countless other video game movies that suck. Yes POP did suck and I love the Prince of Persia games.
what about lara croft: tomb raider?

JanTwoSeven
10-14-2012, 06:49 PM
The only thing I care about are the stunts and fighting. Hollywood movies I see does NOT make any good fight/stunt movies.

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:49 PM
Again..

PoP movie: Produced by Sony, Published by Sony
AC movie: Produced by UbiSoft, Published by Sony

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:50 PM
The only thing I care about are the stunts and fighting. Hollywood movies I see does NOT make any good fight/stunt movies.

..Mission Impossible?

kriegerdesgottes
10-14-2012, 06:51 PM
AC film would be cool ,and if you remeber Prince of Persia wasnt animated there were real actors.

True if it had been with CG characters and NOT made by Disney, I'm sure someone could make something wonderful out of it. But I don't trust the movie industry anymore to do it right.

ACfan443
10-14-2012, 06:51 PM
Again..

PoP movie: Produced by Sony, Published by Sony
AC movie: Produced by UbiSoft, Published by Sony

If I remember correctly. Sony's no longer in on it. Fassbender's own company will publish it. But yeah, I guess it doesn't make a difference to execution.

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:51 PM
good god...

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:52 PM
If I remember correctly. Sony's no longer in on it. Fassbender's own company will publish it. But yeah, I guess it doesn't make a difference to execution.
Oh, well.. that's even better.

Guys, the Assassin's Creed movie will be awesome.

JanTwoSeven
10-14-2012, 06:53 PM
..Mission Impossible?
I've seen better.

kriegerdesgottes
10-14-2012, 06:56 PM
Also, think: Why hasn't there ever been a movie made solely out of CGI?

Except Toy story which was the first and one of the greatest film franchises ever made, shreck, and countless other Pixar/Disney/Dream Works films. Also Sony did not produce POP, Disney did.

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:56 PM
I've seen better.
uhh..

....

why do people say things like this without providing what they think is better?

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:57 PM
Except Toy story which was the first and one of the greatest film franchises ever made, shreck, and countless other Pixar/Disney/Dream Works films. Also Sony did not produce POP, Disney did.
Those actually don't count for what we're talking about, since the OP wants the kind of CGI used in the AC trailers, which would cost a lot more than the CGI used by Pixar since it's less detailed.

:)

kuled2012
10-14-2012, 06:58 PM
because it would cost a hell of a lot of money

Lineage?

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 06:59 PM
Lineage?
Was half an hour long..

and kind of sucked..

TheDanteEX
10-14-2012, 07:01 PM
It's expensive. And real life actors would most likely be used anyways for motion capture. It worked really well for Beowulf, but that movie had a 150 million dollar budget.

JanTwoSeven
10-14-2012, 07:01 PM
uhh..

....

why do people say things like this without providing what they think is better?
I'm looking for it.
Here, go to 1:21:20 and a bit later watch the end fight scenes :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awR1L5cCRDI

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 07:03 PM
It's expensive. And real life actors would most likely be used anyways for motion capture. It worked really well for Beowulf, but that movie had a 150 million dollar budget.

Oh yea, that's true, the stunts wouldn't necessarily be better since they would be using mocap most of the time anyway..

Unless you want them to animate EVERYTHING.. which would be a lot more expensive than just 3D characters.

Evenesque
10-14-2012, 07:17 PM
And honestly, I like the CGI trailers, but I couldn't really watch a movie made out of solely CG!

Also, I hope you guys realize that they still use a lot of CGI in live-action movies.. I guarantee you it'll still be just as awesome as a live action movie as a CGI movie..

Also, think: Why hasn't there ever been a movie made solely out of CGI?

Um, Pixar?

Polar Express?

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 07:19 PM
Um, Pixar?

Polar Express?

Those actually don't count for what we're talking about, since the OP wants the kind of CGI used in the AC trailers, which would cost a lot more than the CGI used by Pixar since it's less detailed.

:)

..yea..

lukaszep
10-14-2012, 07:34 PM
There's a lot of confusion on this thread...

CG movies generally are a lot cheaper than a standard movie, unless it has a high profile voice cast. Practical sets on a live action movie in some cases can also be cheaper than using CG for everything (depending on how many sets and stages you would need, special effects, the amount of post production work, and the salaries of high profile talent).

A CG movie would be a lot less risky in terms of budget, but it might not appeal to AC's main audience (18+ males). I would prefer live action anyway as it could potentially involve some really spectacular moments and scenery It would also be easier for audiences unfamiliar with the franchise to connect with.

If they were to make the film on location in a European country, they could actually keep it quite low budget providing they took advantage of local actors and some countries tax reductions.

JanTwoSeven
10-14-2012, 07:44 PM
... but it might not appeal to AC's main audience (18+ males).

I'm talking about the CGI in the AC trailers.

lukaszep
10-14-2012, 07:46 PM
I know. Honestly, a CGI movie, even if it's based on an adult franchise, would be lucky to break even. The majority of the adult audience does not care about CG movies.

JanTwoSeven
10-14-2012, 08:06 PM
They might as well not make a movie since live action ones are gonna suck. I assume this because american movies suck at fighting/stunts, they are more better at explosions/gun shooting movies.

dewgel
10-14-2012, 09:03 PM
If only you knew how much those E3 CGI trailers cost, and how long to make. Would be awesome though.

Evenesque
10-14-2012, 09:12 PM
..yea..

How does polar express not count.....the whole movie was a massive CGI trailer.

Jexx21
10-14-2012, 09:42 PM
They might as well not make a movie since live action ones are gonna suck. I assume this because american movies suck at fighting/stunts, they are more better at explosions/gun shooting movies.
i love how you assume you know things.

Aphex_Tim
10-14-2012, 10:15 PM
The PoP wasn't all that bad... It could've been much worse.

T.Guywood
10-14-2012, 10:17 PM
Because animation is very time consuming, and super expensivo i think.

kriegerdesgottes
10-14-2012, 10:25 PM
The PoP wasn't all that bad... It could've been much worse.

It was the only movie I ever strongly considered getting up and walking out on in the theater and I was a massive obsessive POP fan. It being a Disney movie was a massive mistake along with the horrible cast.

Assassin_M
10-14-2012, 10:28 PM
*Comes here* Hmm *Looks at people talking about things they know nothing about* Ahhhh *Wonders if he should correct them with a HUGE rant*..... Nah..

masterfenix2009
10-14-2012, 10:30 PM
*comes here* hmm *looks at people talking about things they know nothing about* ahhhh *wonders if he should correct them with a huge rant*..... Nah..
do it! Do it! Do it!

naran6142
10-14-2012, 10:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1ZhcsJH3Co

This in why its a bad idea :p