Everquest: The Movie

[El Gallo]

Now I know why there are no boobs on the next box.  The boob-embossers are working on the movie posters.

http://eqplayers.station.sony.com/news_article.vm?id=50605

[HaemishM]

Is that a robo-dragon?

[Furiously]

What was the name of the gnomish mechanical dragon???  (I'm really showing my inner EQ geek)

[Venkman]

I really can't see any reason why this movie should be made. Yea, it's a nice PR bump for SOE. But anyone who's interested in a monthly-fee based fullscreen immersive multi-gig requires-good-rig MMO is either already here or came and went back to FPS games.

Now, if they took EQ2 and rebuilt the entire thing to work on anything that can run WoW, then maybe they'd have a chance to attract the masses going to the movies. But here again, the masses with older rigs with any adjacent interest are already here or have been here and gone. EQ2 isn't that different at the gameplay level.

I say this gets cancelled sometime between script and shooting.

[UnSub]

Why does this movie idea sound like something that was probably kicked off between LOTR: Fellowship... and LOTR: ROTK, but has only just been escalated to some sort of active phase?

The last few fantasy films I'm aware of  - "Eragon" and "Seeker: The Dark is Rising" - bombed horribly. If "The Golden Compass" falls over at the box office, I can't see an EQ movie having any traction at all. It's a nice idea, about 8 years too late.

By contrast, WoW should still have a few million players when that movie hits the market, so would have a larger potential viewer base.

[Engels]

This is going to be one awful movie. I can already feel it. Not because I dislike EQ, but because I can't see how you can make a decent movie out the "lore" that is in EQ. What the hell is this movie going to be about?

Actually, the movie is most likely going to be not so great, but not for the reason you mention. I have many reasons to dislike EQ, but the lore ain't one of them. Up until Shadows of Luclin, the lore was actually quite cohesive and held a logical narrative. Then, of course, someone had to have kitties on the moon.

[Grand Design]

Why does this movie idea sound like something that was probably kicked off between LOTR: Fellowship... and LOTR: ROTK, but has only just been escalated to some sort of active phase?

Because that's exactly what it is.  I'd bet that this has been kicked around from producer to producer for several years before anyone was willing to touch it.  Its probably been rewritten several times and more than likely a Baldwin was involved at some point.  Bruckheimer is being sought to design the costumes for the male breastplates.

The last few fantasy films I'm aware of  - "Eragon" and "Seeker: The Dark is Rising" - bombed horribly. If "The Golden Compass" falls over at the box office, I can't see an EQ movie having any traction at all. It's a nice idea, about 8 years too late.

The lesson not learned being that fantasy films based on well-written fantasy novels is a good idea.  Other sources, be they pulp fiction fantasy crap or video game lore, are bad.

By contrast, WoW should still have a few million players when that movie hits the market, so would have a larger potential viewer base.

It will break box office records, receive award nominations, convince Hollywood idiots that video games can be made into good movies, and irritate people like me to the point of playing Vanguard out of spite.

[Nebu]

Is that a robo-dragon?

It's a transformer.  It shape changes into a treadmill.

[Merusk]

The last few fantasy films I'm aware of  - "Eragon" and "Seeker: The Dark is Rising" - bombed horribly. If "The Golden Compass" falls over at the box office, I can't see an EQ movie having any traction at all. It's a nice idea, about 8 years too late.

Bad movies do badly, regardless of the source.  That's a lesson Hollywood never learns.  Eragon sucked so much ass, I couldn't finish watching it and sent it back to Netflix the same day it came. 

"Seeker" changed so many of the books fundamentals that even the author wasn't certain she wanted to see the movie.  No way you're going to get fans of the books (already a tiny sample) to go see it that way.  Considering I haven't heard shit about it since the hype the day before, I'm guessing it sucked horribly as well.

[WayAbvPar]

Is that a robo-dragon?

It's a transformer.  It shape changes into a treadmill.

Heh.

[UnSub]

The last few fantasy films I'm aware of  - "Eragon" and "Seeker: The Dark is Rising" - bombed horribly. If "The Golden Compass" falls over at the box office, I can't see an EQ movie having any traction at all. It's a nice idea, about 8 years too late.

The lesson not learned being that well thought out fantasy films with a director who knows what he is doing and really wants the material to work and a strong cast based on well-written fantasy novels is a good idea.  Other sources, be they pulp fiction fantasy crap or video game lore, are bad.

LOTR has had other bad adaptions in the past, but Jackson made it work because of who he is. The first LOTR film could have easily rivalled the D&D movie for quality without his guidance and the very strong cast he had working with him.

The EQ film could suffer the same fate if it just another generic fantasy movie with random references to lore inserted as appropriate. So could the WoW movie.

One acid test will be: which movie gets Jeremy Irons to star in it? If he appears in either film, it is bound to be awful. That's the Jeremy Irons 'working for a pay cheque' way.

[tazelbain]

The last few fantasy films I'm aware of  - "Eragon" and "Seeker: The Dark is Rising" - bombed horribly. If "The Golden Compass" falls over at the box office, I can't see an EQ movie having any traction at all. It's a nice idea, about 8 years too late.

What about Stardust?

As far Golden Compass, the source material wasn't very good.  But the polar bears maybe worth it.

[Merusk]

As far Golden Compass, the source material wasn't very good.  But the polar bears maybe worth it.

Every time I see that trailer I think of this:

[UnSub]

The last few fantasy films I'm aware of  - "Eragon" and "Seeker: The Dark is Rising" - bombed horribly. If "The Golden Compass" falls over at the box office, I can't see an EQ movie having any traction at all. It's a nice idea, about 8 years too late.

What about Stardust?

As far Golden Compass, the source material wasn't very good.  But the polar bears maybe worth it.

Taking a quick look at the relevant page about "Stardust" on IMDb, it didn't make its $65m budget within the US, instead only making about $39m. Now, with worldwide sales I'm sure it'll at least break even, but it certainly didn't set the world on fire.

"The Golden Compass" is a movie with a big budget that New Line is pushing a lot of hope onto for being the next big saga they can earn billions off. If such a movie tanks, it may be determined that the whole fantasy genre isn't bringing fans in any more, and the budget for an EQ film could get slashed or pulled.

And with all that said, I'm still expecting the EQ movie and WoW movie to make Uwe Boll's "Dungeon Siege" movie look good.

[CharlieMopps]

"The Golden Compass" is a movie with a big budget that New Line is pushing a lot of hope onto for being the next big saga they can earn billions off. If such a movie tanks, it may be determined that the whole fantasy genre isn't bringing fans in any more, and the budget for an EQ film could get slashed or pulled.

Using that reasoning, should they have stopped making romantic comedies years ago?

That being said, I'll watch "The Golden Compass" just because Nichole Kidmans in it... she's about as hot, as hot can get.

[stray]

This reminds me of that thread where someone got all giddy after Return of the King won those oscars, literally proclaiming it a kind of "revenge", and expecting some kind of renaissance of fantasy flicks because of it.



Also, romantic comedies rarely tank, nor do they cost enough for it to quickly matter.

[UnSub]

"The Golden Compass" is a movie with a big budget that New Line is pushing a lot of hope onto for being the next big saga they can earn billions off. If such a movie tanks, it may be determined that the whole fantasy genre isn't bringing fans in any more, and the budget for an EQ film could get slashed or pulled.

Using that reasoning, should they have stopped making romantic comedies years ago?

That being said, I'll watch "The Golden Compass" just because Nichole Kidmans in it... she's about as hot, as hot can get.

Romantic comedies are cheap and even bad romantic comedies often make their money back. Fantasy movies, with their expensive special props / costumes / effects etc often don't.

(I'm talking about modern fantasy films, not the 1970's / 80's Italian sword-and-sandal movies that cost about $150 to make and got sold everywhere.)

[Grand Design]

Using that reasoning, should they have stopped making romantic comedies years ago?

Yeah, but as much as fantasy fans are suckers, women will watch almost anything.

[UnSub]

Using that reasoning, should they have stopped making romantic comedies years ago?

Yeah, but as much as fantasy fans are suckers, women and guys looking to take their date on a safe film will watch almost anything.

Fixed.

[Salamok]

Using that reasoning, should they have stopped making romantic comedies years ago?

Yeah, but as much as fantasy fans are suckers, women and guys looking to take their date on a safe film get in their pants will watch almost anything.

Fixed.

fixed again

[Grand Design]

We have discovered the heart of the matter.

[Merusk]

Well duh.   It always comes back to sex, shelter or food.

[DraconianOne]

So many reasons why D&D failed as a movie - not least because TSR sold the rights to some smart arse 19 year old who then spent 10 years raising a meagre $35m and directed it as his first film. 

35 fucking million dollars!

Even Uwe fucking-hack Boll - who made House of the Dead for $7m and Alone in the Dark for $20m managed to get (and waste) $60m for Dungeon Siege.  If you're going to make a film with the potential scope of something like D&D - or even EQ or WoW - then you're looking at a budget of at the basic minimum of about $70m.  (300, with all it's CGI backgrounds, cost $65m to make)

Does fantasy as a genre still have a pull?  Of course it does!  You mention failures like Eragon and Dark is Rising but what about Harry Potter?  People wouldn't keep going back to see the films if they were crap but the fact is they're good films.  Shrek may well be animated, but it was good and it sold.  What about 300, as I've already mentioned it?  It brought in over $200m in the USA alone - yet it's a sword and sandals epic told as a fantasy/mythological story, based on a graphic novel that very few people know about outside of, well, the usual geeks and freaks.  And it had no big name stars.  Gladiator was a very popular sword and sandals film too - made it's money back. 

But Troy?  With Brad Pitt and some other beautiful people?  Didn't sell.  Why?  Because it was crap.  And dull.  And crap.  Go further back and compare Willow to Legend - late 80's fantasy films with little people in.  Willow was relatively successful while Legend bombed. 1991 - Robin Hood vs Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves?  One made money, the other didn't. 

The problem with films like Stardust is that it's not getting rave reviews and also not getting word of mouth.  Plus it was released on the same day as Rush Hour 3 which everyone went to see and then had to compete the following week with Superbad which already had good word of mouth so everyone went to see that too.  I haven't seen Stardust yet - it's only just been released in the UK - so I can't say whether it's any good or not.  Maybe it'll be like The Princess Bride, Blade Runner and Austin Powers and become a DVD hit or maybe it's just not that good. 

Could a good film be made out of Everquest?  No reason why not - it depends on how much it tries to be a good film and how much it tries to cater to the (relatively) limited number of fans.  Same goes for a WoW film.  I don't know EQ or its lore that well but it tends to strike me as taking itself more seriously than WoW which may work against it.  I also reckon that WoW will get the budget it needs - $115m or more but unless it's any good, it won't make it's money back, even with (for the sake of argument) a guaranteed 8 million bums on seats. 

[Morat20]

The lesson not learned being that fantasy films based on well-written fantasy novels is a good idea.  Other sources, be they pulp fiction fantasy crap or video game lore, are bad.

For the record, Seekers was based on The Dark Is Rising, which got the Newberry Honor in '74. One of the other books in the 5-book set (The Grey King) won the Newberry in 1976. As children's literature goes, they're quite good.

The movie, by all accounts, raped the source material. I haven't been to see it, because I'm afraid it might retroactively damage my childhood and make me hate all books.

Bad movies are bad movies. Good movies are good movies. And you can turn a great book/IP/lore/story/idea into a shitty movie, and turn a shitty book/IP/lore/story/idea into a great movie -- it's the script, the actors, the director, and the budget that determine which is which.

[Grand Design]

Ok.  I can't disagree with that.  Let me amend my statement:

The lesson not learned being that fantasy films based on well-written fantasy novels is a good idea*.  Other sources, be they pulp fiction fantasy crap or video game lore, are bad**.

*Except when the script, the actors, the director, and the budget determine otherwise.

**Except when the script, the actors, the director, and the budget determine otherwise.



I stick by my assertion that using pulp fiction fantasy and video game lore is a bad idea.  That's not to say that a good film cannot be made from questionable source material.  But you're playing with fire if you think that a convoluted story about kitty cats on the moon will put asses in movie seats simply because it has the EQ logo on the poster in the lobby. 

Now, if J. K. Rowling writes the script, Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale and Ian Holm are signed on, and Terry Gilliam is given $200 million to make Everquest: The Movie - yes, you'd probably get a pretty damned good kitty cat on the moon movie.

[DraconianOne]

Now, if J. K. Rowling writes the script...

Fall at hurdle one.

Just because she's a phenomenonally successful novellist (of debateable ability) does not mean that she could write a good screenplay.  I think it was Hemingway who was approached to write a screenplay once but it was so diabollically awful that it had to be rewritten by someone else.

Coming up with the story, that's something else.

[Grand Design]

The point was not that J. K. Rowling can write a good screenplay. 

(And not the most absurd aspect of that scenario.  But ok.)

The point was, if and only if the stars aligned could EQ:TM not be a giant steaming heap of suck with a slight aftertaste of 'Father, why have you foresaken me?'

[DraconianOne]

My bad.  I tripped and plunged headlong first into the sarchasm.

But.

There is no reason why a film based on a video game (or whatever) needs to be bad.  The same used to be said of films made of comic book heroes but recent years have set the record straight on that.  As much as I said elsewhere that I didn't think Silent Hill was a good film, it's not teh big pile of suck either - not in the same way that Uwe Boll's steaming piles of turd are.  Or Doom.  Or Super Mario Bros.

The problem a writer faces is how much do you change a story/lore etc to accomodate the fans and how much do you change to make a good story.  There's no reason why you can't make a good film from, say, System Shock 2 although you may have to dispense with aspects like being the last person left alive on the ship.  But the high concept sell would be simple: zombies on a spaceship - Alien meets Night of the Living Dead.  Half-life could be done too: Die Hard in a science complex (with added Aliens).  Halo?  Easy. 

Quite frankly, if they can make an entertaining and popular film out of a fucking theme park ride, they can do anything (except simultaneously write and shoot two sequels)

[Venkman]

The bad ones are mostly bad because they aren't taken seriously by the producer, in my opinion. When you have the vast majority of your team going into a project kicking and screaming knowing it'll do nothing for their career because it's abou the IP first, IP holder second, stars maybe third and then whatever you personally did a distant twelfth, it's just not a high priority. That affects who you can get interested to work on it at all.

Then there's the IP holder themselves. Just how much experience does SOE have letting someone else make a movie out of their baby?

I don't know EQ or its lore that well but it tends to strike me as taking itself more seriously than WoW which may work against it.

Warcraft books take themselves pretty seriously. There's a pretty deep lore there. I agree EQ takes itself seriously more across the board, but for Warcraft, it's only the games that bring in all the pop-culturey/fun stuff like Finkle Einhorn or Stephen Ryback.

[UnSub]

I stick by my assertion that using pulp fiction fantasy and video game lore is a bad idea.  That's not to say that a good film cannot be made from questionable source material. 

Case: Conan the Barbarian. Defied all odds to be a much better film than it should have been.

For the record, the Harry Potter films are average at best for anyone who doesn't read the books. I don't read the books and find the movies to be frustrating experiences filled with mostly idiot characters. But it wouldn't matter if the Potter films were 3 hours long and had J.K. Rowling doing shadow puppets for all the parts - they'd still be seen by the Potter fans.

DraconianOne, you are throwing your net pretty wide for what a fantasy film is. Shrek, 300 and Robin Hood are all fantasy films in the same vein? Who knew?

Regardless, Grand Design has nailed it - for a good fantasy film to be produced, you need a good, sane director, a strong production team and a talented cast committed to the project. Funnily enough, I can't see an EQ movie (or even a WoW movie) being blessed with all of these things. I will enjoy watching the trainwreck that eventuates though.

[stu]

There's something about the idea of an Everquest movie that just screams awfulness. I could maybe see an EVE HBO/television series being cool.

Aside from state-of-the-art special effects, comic book movies that come out now give us iconic heroes everyone is already familiar with. People who can't read still know who Spider-Man is. People who don't play video games are generally clueless about what Everquest is, aside from the fact that geeks play it and sometimes meet and fall in love through its chat system.

[DraconianOne]

Case: Conan the Barbarian. Defied all odds to be a much better film than it should have been.

Conan is a terrible film that happens to be very entertaining.  The script and dialogue is awful, the acting is pretty much terrible all around, the special effects forgot to be special and it's incredibly low budget (costing $20m in 1982 to make).  But despite all this, it works and is very popular - and was popular enough to make it's money back in the box office. 

For the record, the Harry Potter films are average at best for anyone who doesn't read the books. 

Only in your opinion.  But by saying this you're also disproving your subsequent assertion that "for a good fantasy film to be produced, you need a good, sane director, a strong production team and a talented, committed cast".    For Goblet of Fire, we're talking Mike Newell directing, a hugely talented production team with awards aplenty between them, a very strong cast in Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Jason Isaacs, Timothy Spall etc., a stong, lean and concise screenplay and yet, in your opinion, it's still merely average.  It was also pretty much universally praised as a good and entertaining film in it's own right and not just popular with fans of the book. 

DraconianOne, you are throwing your net pretty wide for what a fantasy film is. Shrek, 300 and Robin Hood are all fantasy films in the same vein? Who knew?

If you look at the IMDB top 100 fantasy films, you'll see that number 1 is Empire Strikes Back.  You'll also see that The Green Mile, The Seventh Seal, It's A Wonderful Life and others.  Fantasy as a genre is hard to define.  On the basis of this topic, it's no doubt being used in terms of "Swords and Sorcery" films of which there aren't that many and certainly not that many good ones.  300 I refer to because, while it's based on historical events, is told as a story with a strong fantasy element (unless they really have floating, half naked girls in Greece as well as monstrous giants).  Contrast with Troy which is a film about a myth that's told as an historical epic.  The point about using 300 as an example is that it's a reasonably low budget film that's essentially a swords and sandals epic, based on a little known IP,that should not have made as much money as it did.

Also, how is Shrek not a fantasy film?

For a good fantasy film to be produced, you need a good, sane director, a strong production team and a talented cast committed to the project.

As William Goldman keeps saying in his books, nobody knows nothing when it comes to knowing what makes a good film that, more importantly, will sell.  These are all highly condusive factors and sway heavily in favour but they're not enough to guarantee that a film will either a) not suck and b) sell.

Funnily enough, I can't see an EQ movie (or even a WoW movie) being blessed with all of these things. I will enjoy watching the trainwreck that eventuates though.

I concur.  Of the two, I think that a Warcraft film has a better chance of potentially being good because, I don't know, it's just a feeling.  As Darniaq reminded me, the books (of which I've read one) do take themselves pretty seriously but I do think that if they make it light hearted enough and write it well enough then it could be a quite entertaining. 

There's a challenge hidden in this discussion somewhere...

[Morat20]

I concur.  Of the two, I think that a Warcraft film has a better chance of potentially being good because, I don't know, it's just a feeling. 

Probably based on Blizzard's general unwillingness to tolerate crap under the Warcraft name. Lucas doesn't seem to mind continuing to pelt the Star Wars IP with a storm of shitty products, content that enough will stick to make more money.

Blizzard, on the other hand, seems perfectly happy to write off money and postpone delivery until they can deliver something solid.

Having that sort of leverage over a movie production would be difficult, but I suspect Blizzard would refuse to license the IP without sufficient authority over the process. The Warcraft IP plus their reputation for quality is what keeps them in money hats, and I don't doubt for a second that Blizzard would view a shitty movie as a stain on their reputation for quality.

[rk47]

 

[Venkman]

As long as the folks who make the Blizzard games have any say at all on the movie. This is not a foregone conclusion going by the history of licensing. But yes, if anyone has the chance to force a good movie no strength-of-IP alone, it's Blizzard.

As to the Potter movies, the Goblet of Fire was the only good actual movie (yes, imho). The rest were good because of the books, themselves more "good" because of the strength of the overall IP than in any critical literary sense (yes, imho). As standalones, they'd be Stardust (fact! FACT!... yes, imho).