|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Victariongreyjoy
Lorien
Jan 1 2019, 8:29pm
Post #1 of 18
(4816 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Could a ''Rogue One'' Middle-Earth movie work?
|
Can't Post
|
|
Maybe adapting Battle of Dale or the fiction War in The North game? Seeing how Rogue One managed to hit 1 billion and became successful, could this work also for the Tolkien franchise?
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
Jan 1 2019, 8:34pm
Post #2 of 18
(4787 views)
Shortcut
|
To my mind, there are two types of film franchises: anthologies and sagas. The difference between that in the former, the throughline is recurring characters, the setting, certain iconography, etcetra - but the plots of the films are largely independent. A saga is one in which all films contribute to some overarching story or conflict.
Marvel is a prime example of an anthology, whereas the Middle Earth films are a prime example of a saga. The case of Star Wars, which as of late tried to combine both approaches, would seem to suggest that its not a worthwhile approach: you either just the saga way, or the anthology way - you can't do both.
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 1 2019, 9:15pm
Post #3 of 18
(4778 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes each film tells an enclosed story but most of them also contribute an element to an over-arching story that has led us to the last two Avengers films.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 2 2019, 2:29am
Post #4 of 18
(4757 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I could see the Amazon series doing that
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and I think that approach would make for a better story, instead of a wide-release movie. The movie industry has too many economic obstacles that prevent Middle-earth spin-off stories from being made well.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Jan 2 2019, 5:06am
Post #5 of 18
(4746 views)
Shortcut
|
The approach of an original story within the mythos does have some potential, though many potential viewers would hate it just on general principle. It's really no different from what has already been done with games such as Shadow of Mordor. At least the Battle of Dale/Siege of Erebor would make use of pre-existing characters and situations.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." - Adam Savage
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Jan 2 2019, 5:07am)
|
|
|
Victariongreyjoy
Lorien
Jan 2 2019, 3:50pm
Post #6 of 18
(4694 views)
Shortcut
|
Could they pull off a season of the Battle of Dale\Siege of Erebor? Wouldn't the whole battle cost a LOT for a tv-show?
|
|
|
Thor 'n' Oakenshield
Rohan
Jan 2 2019, 5:18pm
Post #7 of 18
(4687 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah, Marvel is definitely a saga
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Every single film has built up to Avengers 4 in an incredible way.
"Torment in the dark was the danger that I feared, and it did not hold me back. But I would not have come, had I known the danger of light and joy. Now I have taken my worst wound in this parting, even if I were to go this night straight to the Dark Lord."
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
Jan 2 2019, 10:47pm
Post #8 of 18
(4666 views)
Shortcut
|
Every single film has built up to Avengers 4 in an incredible way.
They do contain elements of build-up, but their not all about the fight against Thanos.
|
|
|
Thor 'n' Oakenshield
Rohan
Jan 2 2019, 11:42pm
Post #9 of 18
(4657 views)
Shortcut
|
Obviously, the story starts off with Steve Rogers in WWII, where he becomes the first superhero. Red Skull finds and uses the Tesseract - he escapes through it to Vormir, where the Soul Stone is kept.
SHIIELD is created. Hydra rebuilds, and employs the Winter Soldier to do their bidding. The Tesseract is recovered by Howard Stark and kept by SHIELD.
Captain Marvel in the 1990's, and the Kree/Skrull war that, as we will discover after Avengers 4, will have huge repercussions on the MCU when Captain Marvel returns from space in Avengers 4.
Tony Stark becomes Iron Man.
Thor arrives on earth. The Tesseract.
Steve Rogers is found and unfrozen.
Loki steals the Tesseract. The Avengers are formed. At the Battle of New York, Loki, who is being mind-controlled by Thanos, uses the Titan's Chitauri army unsuccessfully in an attempt to prove his worth to the Titan. Post-credits scene reveals Thanos for the first time. Loki's scepter, a gift from Thanos, also contains the Mind Stone.
Thor gives the Reality Stone to the Collector.
SHIELD infiltrated by Hydra. Doctor Strange mentioned for the first time.
Battle of Xandar. Thanos gets the Power Stone.
Vision created with the power of the Mind Stone from Loki's scepter.
Battle of Sokovia leads directly to the Sokovia Accords. The Hulk vanishes into outer space. Thor leaves to hunt Infinity Stones.
Quantum Realm revealed, via Antman.
Another Thanos post-credits scene.
Scarlet Witch kills civilians in Lagos, causing the UN to ratify the Sokovia Accords, leading to the Civil War between Tony Stark and Steve Rogers. T'Challa is introduced.
T'Challa becomes King of Wakanda. He ends Wakanda's isolationist policies.
Doctor Strange finds the Time Stone.
Asgard destroyed, leaving Thor king of a shattered people, who are suddenly attacked on their journey to Earth by Thanos, armed with the Power Stone. He gets all six Infinity Stones, from Loki, Collector, Gamora, Doctor Strange and from Vision at the Battle of Wakanda, wipes out half the universe's population, and Nick Fury pages Captain Marvel to come defeat him.
Antman trapped in the Quantum Realm.
And these aforementioned events take place in "Captain America: The First Avenger", "Captain Marvel", "Iron Man", "Captain America: The Winter Soldier", "Thor", "Avengers", "Guardians of the Galaxy", "Thor: The Dark World", "Avengers: Age of Ultron", "Antman", "Captain America: Civil War", "Doctor Strange", "Black Panther", and while many of them only reveal certain small aspects, each one does its job bringing in some new factor that, when they are all combined, will result in everything coming together in Avengers 4. Leaving aside the fact that it can be argued that the whole MCU is built around Tony and Steve, and that the fight against Thanos is simply secondary, it cannot be denied that each of these films is leading up to this: even Antman, since the Quantum Realm is hugely significant going forward. The only movies that maybe don't as much, maybe Homecoming and Guardians 2, though even there you've got the Nebula setup, and she's already played a huge role in IW and undeniably in A4 - plus "Adam" who, obviously, is going to be revealed to be Adam Warlock eventually, because the wonderful thing is that the MCU hasn't just been setting up for Avengers 4, they've been setting up for many many movie after that too!
"Torment in the dark was the danger that I feared, and it did not hold me back. But I would not have come, had I known the danger of light and joy. Now I have taken my worst wound in this parting, even if I were to go this night straight to the Dark Lord."
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 3 2019, 2:09am
Post #10 of 18
(4641 views)
Shortcut
|
It's not ringing a bell.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Thor 'n' Oakenshield
Rohan
Jan 3 2019, 2:19am
Post #11 of 18
(4639 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Post-credits scene: Guardians of the Galaxy 2
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
There's a scene with a birthing pod that reveals a character simply called "Adam", which, according to Guardians' (ex) director James Gunn, is indeed Adam Warlock, who he planned to include in Guardians of the Galaxy 3. Of course, since he is now fired (for good reason), it's anyone's guess whether Adam will end up in the third movie, or whether Guardians 3 will ever even be made.
"Torment in the dark was the danger that I feared, and it did not hold me back. But I would not have come, had I known the danger of light and joy. Now I have taken my worst wound in this parting, even if I were to go this night straight to the Dark Lord."
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 3 2019, 3:48am
Post #12 of 18
(4626 views)
Shortcut
|
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 16 2019, 11:53am
Post #13 of 18
(4373 views)
Shortcut
|
|
In Starwars I think the switch worked...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To my mind, there are two types of film franchises: anthologies and sagas. The difference between that in the former, the throughline is recurring characters, the setting, certain iconography, etcetra - but the plots of the films are largely independent. A saga is one in which all films contribute to some overarching story or conflict.
Marvel is a prime example of an anthology, whereas the Middle Earth films are a prime example of a saga. The case of Star Wars, which as of late tried to combine both approaches, would seem to suggest that its not a worthwhile approach: you either just the saga way, or the anthology way - you can't do both.
Personally I'd say Rogue One is the only good Starwars film that's been made since the originals, both the prequels and the sequels attempts to extend the saga have largely fallen flat for me.
What I'd say it does highlight as well is the importance of setting. In the case of Marvel this tends to be pretty random or a standard modern world but both Lord of the Rings and Starwars have a very distinctive world to them. Rogue One arguably did the best job of actually creating that setting again which I think both made for interesting viewing and freed it from having to tie into previous events and characters too closely, it could tell its own story.
In relation to future Tolkien as well I think Amazon might do well to pay attention to just how Rogue One recreated the feel of the originals setting. It wasn't just a case of including designs we'd already seen but rather I'd say that frontier western atmosphere as well. The same is true with Tolkien for me, I think the real key to the atmosphere he creates often isn't in places like Rivendell, Minas Tirith, etc but actually more in travel across wilder locations that have a sense of a deeper history to them.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Jan 16 2019, 11:54am)
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
Jan 16 2019, 4:24pm
Post #14 of 18
(4360 views)
Shortcut
|
Personally I'd say Rogue One is the only good Starwars film that's been made since the originals, both the prequels and the sequels attempts to extend the saga have largely fallen flat for me.
What I'd say it does highlight as well is the importance of setting. In the case of Marvel this tends to be pretty random or a standard modern world but both Lord of the Rings and Starwars have a very distinctive world to them. Rogue One arguably did the best job of actually creating that setting again.
Interesting.
I have a cordial dislike for the term "world-building" which is what you're essentially describing.
No matter how otherworldly or spectacular the fictional setting of a film or film series is, a movie simply isn't the right medium with which to showcase such a world for two (or three) hours. If it were, we'd have mockumentaries set in Hobbiton, which we obviously don't have.
Rather, Films are driven by character stories. Focusing on the world itself, instead, is the surest way to produce an unfocused and lethargic motion picture.
Connected to that, the idea that a film series should be built upon world-building is also anathema to me. That is, this notion that the connective tissue between different films in a series need only be a shared setting or "cinematic universe".
I think that, in order to produce a truly unified series, one needs to introduce an overarching story of some sort, and stories always revolve around conflict: be it that of the Empire versus the Rebels in Star Wars, or the Free People against The Dark Lord in the Tolkien works.
To be fair, Rogue One (a film I like fine) actually does that quite well: its essentially an "episode 3.5", and certainly hangs onto the central conflict of the series and develops it.
I was thinking more along the lines of Solo, a film that connects to the rest of the series merely through the shared setting (the Galaxy) and recurring characters and iconography. The central conflict of the series is there, but its in the background. Clearly, that wasn't enough for people, and rightly so.
The Middle Earth films have thus far been succesful at connecting all six films not just through a shared setting or recurring characters, but primarily through a shared central conflict: In both trilogies, Sauron is the arch-nemesis. The entrie sextet can therefore be nicknamed "The War of the Ring" and, as such, it has a unified story, told in six parts.
Going forward, its most likely that upcoming TV and film productions in this series will continue to focus on the struggle against Sauron. If the upcoming show will indeed focus on a young Aragorn, well than we know that he "laboured in the cause against Sauron."
Furthermore, as slow as a film like - say - An Unexpected Journey can be, it never does "world-building" per se. The closest we get to that is the going-into-detail of the backstory of Glamdring and Orcrist. Although even that ends up paying off, because its the swords' Elvish heritage that leads to Legolas confiscating Orcrist and claiming it for himself.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jan 16 2019, 4:31pm)
|
|
|
CuriousG
Half-elven
Jan 17 2019, 1:46pm
Post #15 of 18
(4288 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How would you define world-building?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
(even if you dislike it)
I wasn't clear from your post what you were trying to say, but I think your view is that movies can't build worlds, but didn't the original 3 Star Wars films (or even just the first one, but not worth quibbling) build a world? Granted, it doesn't have the detail of Middle-earth or Harry Potter's world, but I think it did build a world (or galaxy, more accurately) that seemed coherent, self-consistent, and fleshed out, so it wasn't just another scifi movie with spaceships zooming around and cool fight scenes. Maybe what I'm suggesting is that movies can accomplish "world-building lite."
I'm still trying to clarify this myself, but for one example, I really like the film Aliens, but as much as I like it, I would say it only vaguely sketches out the "world" or society that Ripley and the others come from. I wouldn't call it a world-building movie. I don't think it tries to be one. But I think Star Wars does.
|
|
|
Chen G.
Gondor
Jan 17 2019, 5:20pm
Post #16 of 18
(4280 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Exploring the world of the film for its own sake
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That's how I'll explain world-building.
I don't think the original Star Wars does any real "world-building": it never stops its plot dead and just explores Tatooine or the Death Star, for instance.
It just tells a story set in this imaginary, fully-realized universe. It never explores the universe itself outside of the context of the story. Neither does The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit.
From memory, it does happen in some later Star Wars films and some contemporary comic-book adaptations. Among other things, it presents itself when characters speak of events and places never to be explored in the course of the narrative, just to give the audience a sense of the world of the film.
And, in a serialized sense, it happens with films like Fantastic Beasts or Solo, which are only connected to the main thrust of an existing series through the shared setting, recurring characters and iconography: not through a shared central conflict.
That isn't to say, of course, that a film can't linger on certain visual elements of its world. Just like directors such as David Lean or Stanley Kubrick would let the camera linger so that the audience can drink in the spenldour of the desert or of outer space, so too can contemporary filmmakers do with films set in fictional places.
(This post was edited by Chen G. on Jan 17 2019, 5:33pm)
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 17 2019, 8:19pm
Post #17 of 18
(4256 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'd define 'world-building' differently:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
establishing a new civilisation/environment that is internally cohesive and which influences the charaters/plot, either subtly (usually) or overtly, in meaningful ways. Sight-seeing or visual exploration isn't necessary.
Tolkien is the ultimate in world-building, of course, but any good fantasy or SF story has world-building embedded in it. Whether it's done to a substantial degree or even particularly well is another question.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 20 2019, 11:44am
Post #18 of 18
(4147 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I would say that "setting" is rather different to that...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That's how I'll explain world-building.
I don't think the original Star Wars does any real "world-building": it never stops its plot dead and just explores Tatooine or the Death Star, for instance.
It just tells a story set in this imaginary, fully-realized universe. It never explores the universe itself outside of the context of the story. Neither does The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit.
From memory, it does happen in some later Star Wars films and some contemporary comic-book adaptations. Among other things, it presents itself when characters speak of events and places never to be explored in the course of the narrative, just to give the audience a sense of the world of the film.
And, in a serialized sense, it happens with films like Fantastic Beasts or Solo, which are only connected to the main thrust of an existing series through the shared setting, recurring characters and iconography: not through a shared central conflict.
That isn't to say, of course, that a film can't linger on certain visual elements of its world. Just like directors such as David Lean or Stanley Kubrick would let the camera linger so that the audience can drink in the spenldour of the desert or of outer space, so too can contemporary filmmakers do with films set in fictional places.
If your defining world building in those terms I wouldn't really class what I was referring to along the same kind of lines. Starwars deliberately leaves a lot of its "distant horizons" empty to a greater degree than Tolkien does but I think it does establish its setting well.
Again my point was more that I think Starwars is more than just its iconic design work, the original films for me always have a bit of a western like frontier atmosphere to them. Rogue One I think feels most like Starwars for me partly because it looks to recreate that in a fashion the prequels and sequels often don't.
In the case of Tolkien I think a lot of Jacksons success was down to his successfully recreating a lot of the atmosphere of his setting even if he did not include nearly as much world building. The oft quoted "layers of history" I think sums it up very well, the feeling of walking though British or European countryside with a strong sense of history to it.
|
|
|
|
|
