Report: Assassin's Creed movie deal gives Ubi too much power, puts movie in danger

@Lance001 I disagree with that theory. Uwe Boll's movies suck because they're Uwe Boll. Other game movies have sucked not because the game companies aren't involved, but because they try to stay too close to the game's roots. You have to take some creative liberties when you're adapting a property for a new format (see: the Batman movies, all Marvel movies, etc).

Game companies shouldn't have creative control over a movie production. It's as simple as that in my eyes. They should be heavily involved, sure, but not full control. That's absurd. They're not movie production companies.

@Ayepecks

I agree. Suppose Legendary Pictures teamed up with Valve to produce an Inception videogame. You wouldn't give Legendary Pictures final authority on all game design decisions. Movie companies understand movies better than videogame companies, and vice versa.

@Ayepecks I disagree, Ayepecks, for this reason: The article isn't saying Ubisoft is actually manning the cameras, directing the movie, etc...it merely allows Ubisoft the ability to approve decisions. So when they hire a fully-qualified director/producer/team to actually create the movie, they can say "no" when the director wants to turn Ezio's storyline into "A family of treasure-seeking ninjas who must discover the value of love and acceptance."

It's less about the actual production work than it is OK'ing or vetoing the decisions being made.

@Ayepecks Gabe Newell and the excellent Valve shorts disagree with you.

@Ayepecks

". Other game movies have sucked not because the game companies aren't involved, but because they try to stay too close to the game's roots."


Whaaaa? What video game movies are you watching? I haven't seen a single one that came CLOSE to being related to the source material. Even the "good" ones like Resident Evil 1 and Prince of Persia took massive creative liberties.

In fact, it's quite the opposite. When you still close to the source you get fantastic results usually. The recent Marvel movies and Batman Begins/Dark Knight borrowed heavily from the source material.

If anything, Ubisoft SHOULD be more hands on with this project.

@Ayepecks

I feel that the recent Marvel movies have succeeded because they DID stick so close to their roots and because Marvel did have a strong hand in it.

@Ayepecks

Yeah im sorry, but youre completely wrong on this one. I haven't seen one videogame adapted movie that was horrible because it stuck too close the game's roots. Actually I can safely assume that MOST adapted movies would have been incrementally better BY sticking to the game's roots. Imagine if mortal kombat was rated R, how freaking more awesome would that movie have been.

@Ayepecks

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't control over "budget, cast, script, and even release date" something that Ubisoft has been responsible for in every Assassin's Creed game?

"With Ubisoft in charge, and retaining the right to stop production at any time, there seems to be a concern among the interviewed studio heads that Ubisoft would do just that if it didn't like what it was seeing."

I know this was already said, but THANK GOD.

@Lance001

I concur good sir

@Lance001, NaeemTHM, etc: That's exactly the problem: they're being given content control. I'm not sure if you fully understood my comment, because production companies don't man the cameras. They produce the movie, which has nothing to do with manning cameras and all that jazz, but rather with content decisions. The same thing Ubisoft is getting here. You're essentially arguing with something I never said, just something you assumed I said.

Ubisoft having control over all decisions is not a good situation. The last time I checked, Ubisoft was a not a movie production studio. Why on earth would you give them creative control? Marvel Studios now has a movie wing; it didn't have one when Spider-Man and its other earlier movies were being made, but now that it deals so heavily in the industry they've went and hired numerous cinematic figures to run that side of their business. Ubisoft recently began its film division and hasn't announced any major hires. The only person they've really announced is Jean-Julien Baronnet, who has farm more bombs on his record than successes.

As far as the argument of straying from the original material goes: are you people insane? The recent Batman movies have NOT been adhering to source material. Hell, they've invented numerous characters. Iron Man did the same thing. There have been countless articles on why Marvel movies are successful, one of which recently ran on io9. I highly recommend reading it: http://io9.com/5835470/why-iron-man-succeeded-where-green-lantern-failed

If you want examples of why successful video game movies will not get made, look no further than recent game adaptations deals that have fallen apart: Halo and Uncharted. Microsoft wanted free reign in almost all decisions, much like Ubisoft is getting. So instead of having Neill Blomkamp direct a Halo movie, he went on to create an Academy Award Best Picture nominee in District 9. And Sony could have had a Academy Award nominated director in David O. Russell for Uncharted, but instead they've decided to go with a mediocre director in Neil Burger. All because Russell wanted to take creative liberty by adding two family characters (in Academy Award winners Robert DiNero and Joe Pesci) and removing an unlikable character in Sully.

Max Payne is an example of a movie that stayed relatively close to the source material, and it ended up being garbage. If you want game-based movies to be good, you have to let talented directors get the creative control they need. I highly doubt that would happen with Ubisoft's current situation.

@Lance001

Amen.

Since when did "it's either going to be done right or not be done at all" become a bad thing?

No one feels sorry for you that you actually have some accountability towards your source material, Hollywood.

@Ayepecks there have never been a good movie based on a video game. so this is good.

@Ayepecks

See that's where you are wrong. Two years ago, Ubisoft purchased and owns one of Europe's premier film production studios. They have the internal expertise to make the big decisions on films bearing the name of Ubisoft brands. And since they have that expertise, they should be allowed to exercise it as they see fit.

So many game-to-movies suck, and have absolutely NOTHING to do with Uwe Boll. Matter of fact, most of those shitty game-to-films are produced by Sony Pictures, whom because of their Playstation connections, has been considered by many in the games industry as the go-to studios to get their games turned into films. And because of their connections to SCE, one would think that Sony Pictures would be a lot more respectful of video game source material the game companies keep bringing them. But sadly that is not the case. Most of these films only get the bare minimum level of respect for their licenses. No doubt the source of Ubisoft's desire to have control over the project . . . in much the same manner that Microsoft chose to retain control over the making of the Halo movie. And just like the Halo movie, it is much better not to have one at all, than to to have to swallow one that was made half-assed.

@Tachyonic Cargo You're incorrect. Ubisoft has never purchased a film studio, and they certainly didn't two years ago. Early this year they began a film division, which I addressed in my previous post.

And I never said game adaptations are inherently bad because of Uwe Boll. I said Uwe Boll productions are inherently bad because of Uwe Boll, which is accepted knowledge that I'm sure you agree with.

@stiqlol Not really sure how you can compare the current movie industry to the one that existed in 1993, or even the problem the Mario movie had to modern game movies. That movie had script issues, casting issues, directing issues, budgetary issues... there is no way on earth the Mario movie could have been good in the situation it was in.

@Ayepecks

"The last time I checked, Ubisoft was a not a movie production studio." "Ubisoft recently began its film division"

Wow, you totally ruined your own arguement in 5 lines... Way to go...

@Viiral Prince of Persia was pretty good.

@Ayepecks

I don't know if I agree with you on that one... I haven't seen Green Lantern so I can't actually comment on that movie, but Iron Man felt A LOT like the comics to me. Yes they changed things (in the case of Stark's origin that was really more of an update than anything) but they respect the source material.

For instance, combining Whiplash and the Crimson Dynamo into one character in Iron Man 2 makes a lot more sense as Whiplash alone just isn't a convincing villain and having the Crimson Dynamo be the Russian equivalent of Iron Man didn't make any sense either. One thing they DIDN'T do is suddenly have Whiplash be a guy that can create energy bolts out of this arms or have the Crimson Dynamo be... I dunno, some AI robot or something.

The difference is a respect to the source material while giving it a modern update (and getting solid and convincing acting performances by the majority of the cast never hurts, either).

@OwningXylophone Having a film division and being a production studio are not even remotely the same thing. You're aware of that, correct? I'm not sure how any of that "ruined" my argument.

@Rocket Raccoon You can respect source material while still taking creative liberties, which was my entire point. My point wasn't that we should completely change what a property's story was, but that you have to be willing to let talented directors/producers take liberties necessary to ensure an adaptation will be successful.

Sticking too closely to a property not designed for a different medium is destined for failure, and completely changing it so it bears little resemblance to the original property is even worse. But you can't just say "no creative liberties will be given!" All the major cinematic franchises have taken creative liberties, from James Bond to Harry Potter.

@Ayepecks

"As far as the argument of straying from the original material goes: are you people insane? The recent Batman movies have NOT been adhering to source material."

Yes they have. Batman Begins borrows heavily from Year One and Dark Knight was heavily inspired by The Long Halloween as other Batman comics. Take 5 minutes and read up on those movies. And the only character that was created for that series was Rachel Dawes. Guess what? She was the weakest link in both films.

Have you ever seen Road to Perdition or History of Violence? THOSE are prime examples of how amazing a movie can be when you basically turn the comic into a movie.

@(Unverified) I've read both of those. I would argue you haven't if you're saying the movies adhere to those comics, because they clearly do not. Being inspired by a storyline is not the same as strictly adhering to a storyline. The movies are more akin to the style of those comics, but the storylines? No, just no. Plain and simple.

@Ayepecks
You seem like the type that won't back down even when there's a gigantic neon sign in front of you blinking "YOU'RE WRONG".

The recent successful comic book movies stuck as close to the source material as is allowed in a 3 hour action film. Batman moved further away from it because they didn't want to create a series.. they wanted the film to stand on it's own and possibly be a trilogy and nothing more. However, the origins of Batman are pretty close (read Year One) and the main themes that make him the anti-hero that he is are present very heavily in the films (read any Batman comic).

@Ayepecks

I do agree with you. I just feel that Ubisoft probably understands the characters and stories and what makes them popular better than possibly a lot of directors/producers out there. I know that video games (or even comics) aren't exactly like the movies but these video games (and comics) are popular for a reason. In addition to the gameplay of Assassin's Creed I love the storyline and Ubisoft is responsible for the storyline. They did something good and I feel they should have a lot of say in trying to continue to bring that 'something good' to other mediums.

We should probably agree to disagree on that last point :D

@AdventXD There is no gigantic blinking sign that says I'm wrong. There's a difference of opinion, and judging from a lot of the statements in this thread and others, the majority of commenters on Joystiq know very little of the movie industry. I, however, do know quite a bit on the movie industry. Am I saying I'm inherently right? Absolutely not. Just that I have an informed opinion, and I don't agree with your insinuation that I'm some sort of dunce. I don't think you'd like it if people went around stating a game developer is the same thing as a middleware developer, then have the same person tell you that you know nothing of the game industry and your opinion of what makes a good game adaptation is automatically wrong.

If I'm wrong, tell me why I'm wrong. My comments are getting downvoted, but all the responses attempting to explain why I'm wrong have either misread my post (I never said Uwe Boll was the reason video game movies suck, quite clearly), been wrong themselves (which I have pointed out, such as the statement that Ubisoft bought a production company when it in fact bought an effects studio), or have provided nothing to substantiate their logic. And that's fine, but I'd honestly like to read some well-informed opinions on why I'm wrong if you're going to make claims about how I'm obviously wrong.

And I'm not above admitting I could be wrong. But don't flash this nonsense that I don't know what I'm talking about when no one else has demonstrated even a basic knowledge of cinema or the film industry (which doesn't make them wrong, but also doesn't help their cases). We have a difference of opinion. I'm defending my point. There's nothing wrong with that. If Ubisoft somehow manages to create an amazing movie (if this deal gets made), I will gladly admit I was wrong.

Also: your arguments on the Batman comic go in my favor. They kept the general premise but took a lot of creative liberties. The same could be said about David O. Russell's proposed Uncharted movie, but everyone got upset about that. And to say Marvel movies have been free of creative liberties is flat-out wrong. See the aforementioned link to the io9 article on Iron Man, which took plenty of its own. Liberties shouldn't be taken for the sake of being different, they should be taken because of a better adaptation to the medium in question.

@Rocket Raccoon I do agree to disagree, absolutely, just let me clarify if you're misunderstanding me: I'm not saying Ubisoft shouldn't have a hand in the movie. They absolutely should, I completely agree with you in that regard. There's nothing worse than when a game company licenses its property out and doesn't even care about the results. I'm just saying they shouldn't have full creative control on the production, especially if Sony hires a talented director (which, unfortunately, most movie productions don't, and the ones that do never get off the ground).

I think the same logic applies to game adaptations of movies. I don't think developers would want a movie studio to have full creative control. If you get a talented developer to make a game adaptation, they should absolutely listen for input, but not be bent by the will of a movie studio. I saw another comment about how Hollywood shouldn't be insulted because it doesn't consistently churn out quality movies, so they shouldn't be offended when a game company tells them how to make movies; I ask this: couldn't the same complaint be levied against game companies?

@Ayepecks

Then I think that..... We agree. Although I might lean more heavily onto the game company having more control than you.

Go team.

@Liquidfingers: I agree mostly with this. It would take a much more historical spin with new characters and motivations to make the movie stand apart fro mthe games in an interesting way.

You owuld have to convince us that the movie offers a level of storytelling and immersion we wouldn't be able to get from the games, and I'm not too confident Ubisoft and Sony could pull that off.

@Liquidfingers
Why not? Video games can make good movies the same way movies can make good video games. When a video game movie sucks, it's not because it's a video game movie, it's because it's a shitty movie.

Just the other day, I wasn't even able to convince this guy I knew that the Jurassic Park game TellTale's working on is a good game. He continued on with the "WHY WOULD THEY MAKE THIS" remarks, despite my efforts.

Sure, this movie seems to be going at the wrong path right now, but it doesn't mean there shouldn't be an Assassin's Creed movie. We should be supporting the attempt to make good video game movies, not discouraging video game movies altogether.

I TYPE A LOT BECAUSE I'M LONELY AND NEED SOMETHING TO DO

@Liquidfingers

Totally agree. Assassin's Creed tells a variety of stories using methods that are unique to video games, and not just with 'interactivity,' though I would count that.

A movie would be dumbed down. It's the nature of the medium; look at Lord of the Rings. Hours and hours of film, and there's still so much of Tolkien that went unfilmed. Cinema isn't a bad form of art, it's just not an appropriate venue for a video game story. There's usually too much or too little (see: Street Fighter).

@Liquidfingers

Vote Liquidfingers for congress in 2011

@SushiGummy

Depends on the story they tell. We're all assuming that they will retell a story from one of the games, which would just be a bad idea.

If it stars a new assassin, with a new story, one that's meant for movies and not compressed to be a movie, then I'll pay a little more attention. The comic did this very well.
If they go and make Assassin's Creed: Ezio's Revenge, based on Assassin's Creed II, then I am staying far away.

@SushiGummy

i can certainly see your point of view, but, and this is a big but, i would much rather just let my games and movies be separate from each other. there's really no need to intertwine the two, and i often think that any attempt to do so is just an attempt to cash-in on a popular license. from a business perspective, this makes perfect sense, but far too often in the business world the opinions and concerns of die-hard fans are often overshadowed in order to appeal to broader markets.

furthermore, that feeling that YOU are in control of the journey is completely lost in movies where you're just there for the ride. in my opinion, the biggest appeal of games is their interactivity, and that's what makes them so great to begin with, so taking that out just leads to a static experience that is often never properly portrayed by the actors who were likely never invested in the franchise to begin with and could care less about it as long as they get paid.

i guess i wouldn't be as concerned if they made movies based on games that were completely computer generated instead of live-action. in that way they could believably keep you in the universe without casting an actor who looks nothing like Ezio or Altair, for example. they could even use the same voice actors.

having said all that, Chronicles of Riddick was a phenomenal game that far surpassed the movie franchise from which it is based. this is due to the fact that they spun an interesting side-story, were completely and unflinchingly brutal with it, and had full support from the leading star. it looked and felt like a genuine piece of the Riddick franchise, and actually made me care about it more than the movies ever could due to the fact that i WAS Riddick, snapping necks and shanking fools like some sort of buff, bald headed badass.

@Zertoss: Oh snap.

@foxhound

This news just tells me that Ubisoft knows something like this would happen if they handed over total creative freedom. It would end up like what the Uncharted movie was going to be (i.e. not Uncharted). Hopefully now, since they can pull the plug whenever, we don't have to worry about that outcome.

@foxhound If it were Sony in charge? Sure, I'd believe that. Ubisoft sounds pretty serious about this, though.

But when the movie flops they never know what happened.

@gangcar

ugh madea..

"heller im goin to kill yer"

@gangcar

You had me at January Jones.

@Dirty *cant

Also I would like to see a movie that expands the universe instead of rehashing the plot of the game.