Re: Lack of female assassins in Assassin's Creed? 'Reality of producti
Yeah, thinking about it in those terms, adapting a movie almost precisely in tone and effect, but condensed for running time, from a game's story would be about the same as adapting a movie from a novel. If you've read the novel, and the movie adaptation is fairly faithful, you know what's going to happen to whom, and roughly about when.
But, adaptations will usually take a few (conservatively put in some cases) liberties to try and make the movie as enjoyable as the source material (be it a novel, comic, or game). That's a fine, creative line to walk too.
Now, I've rarely seen movies that have disappointed me if they were adapted from novels. (Ok...The Running Man...that was a Stephen King -- as pseudonym Richard Bachman-- novel turned into a typical 80's Schwarzenegger flick...with little to do with the source material, other than a few character names, and the very....very...general idea that folks fight for their lives to win freedom wrongly taken from them by a dystopian government/society...or in the case of the novel....Ben Richards was participating to try and help his critically ill child, I believe. Taken as a Schwarzie flick, it's mildly enjoyable. Taken as an adaptation of a King/Bachman book....it's horrendous.).
Peter Jackson did a good job of adapting the Lord of the Rings movies, apparently (I never read the books, so I'll have to take more experienced folks' word at it). He's also taking quite a few creative liberties with The Hobbit (a novel that barely warranted two movies, let alone three, according to my room mate) to get a trilogy out of it. Now, my room mate says that the creative liberties he is taking are well within the logic and setting of the story, and are still turning out quite well.
Can you imagine if the latter Harry Potter books (say, Goblet of Fire, onward) were all done as two parters? (like The Deathly Hallows was). The books from GoF onward themselves could easily warrant two parters. We would've probably gotten more of the subplots that were sorely missing from the movies....like Hermione's efforts to free house elves from servitude, and such.) I loved the movies, having only read Prisoner of Azkaban onward. I guess I came to admire the HP stories from the bassackward approach, watching the first couple of movies first, and then reading the novels.
I don't do a lot of reading as it is.
The big problem with making a movie from a game is that if you follow the game too closely, then you'll know exactly what happens to which characters, and thus, the movie is practically spoiled. So, for an Uncharted movie to work, they'll have to invent a completely new story...one that definitely won't find its way into a game adaptation. Perhaps a story that takes place in between Uncharted 3 and 4, so they can invent some new disposable bad (and good) guys.
I don't know; it's not that different from any other adaptation, is it? I suppose you could tell a new story, but there's no reason you'd have to. Most people who see the movie probably wouldn't have played the game anyway.
Besides, setting it between UC 3 and 4 wouldn't make sense. UC3 was essentially the story of how Drake "retired" so he could be with Elena. UC4 is going to be about him "getting back in the game."
A condensed version of the first game would make the most sense for a film.
Yeah, thinking about it in those terms, adapting a movie almost precisely in tone and effect, but condensed for running time, from a game's story would be about the same as adapting a movie from a novel. If you've read the novel, and the movie adaptation is fairly faithful, you know what's going to happen to whom, and roughly about when.
But, adaptations will usually take a few (conservatively put in some cases) liberties to try and make the movie as enjoyable as the source material (be it a novel, comic, or game). That's a fine, creative line to walk too.
Now, I've rarely seen movies that have disappointed me if they were adapted from novels. (Ok...The Running Man...that was a Stephen King -- as pseudonym Richard Bachman-- novel turned into a typical 80's Schwarzenegger flick...with little to do with the source material, other than a few character names, and the very....very...general idea that folks fight for their lives to win freedom wrongly taken from them by a dystopian government/society...or in the case of the novel....Ben Richards was participating to try and help his critically ill child, I believe. Taken as a Schwarzie flick, it's mildly enjoyable. Taken as an adaptation of a King/Bachman book....it's horrendous.).
Peter Jackson did a good job of adapting the Lord of the Rings movies, apparently (I never read the books, so I'll have to take more experienced folks' word at it). He's also taking quite a few creative liberties with The Hobbit (a novel that barely warranted two movies, let alone three, according to my room mate) to get a trilogy out of it. Now, my room mate says that the creative liberties he is taking are well within the logic and setting of the story, and are still turning out quite well.
Can you imagine if the latter Harry Potter books (say, Goblet of Fire, onward) were all done as two parters? (like The Deathly Hallows was). The books from GoF onward themselves could easily warrant two parters. We would've probably gotten more of the subplots that were sorely missing from the movies....like Hermione's efforts to free house elves from servitude, and such.) I loved the movies, having only read Prisoner of Azkaban onward. I guess I came to admire the HP stories from the bassackward approach, watching the first couple of movies first, and then reading the novels.
I don't do a lot of reading as it is.
And hell, the Beyond devs do like the photorealistic, so I'd count it as a compliment that people thought she was in TLOU with another dev 
I wonder if she's played it.
