Hi,
Sorry, but look at the books made from games. All the one's I've looked at (too many by far) are inferior, with cardboard characters, stilted descriptive passages, linear and predictable plots and insipid writing. Look at the fantasy films based on the "group does quest to fight evil" genre. Again I've wasted my time on many. The only ones worth while that I know of are Hawk, the Slayer and Ladyhawk and even those two are pretty weak examples of movie making.
Since when does a good movie need to come from a book?
Since I never said that, I see no reason why I should defend it. A huge number of movies are not based on any book at all, and some of those were excellent. What a movie (or any other story for that matter) has to be based on is a solid concept. There isn't enough material in BG to make a movie if one excludes all the side quests and non-essential NPCs. And if one doesn't do that, then the movie becomes a morass of unconnected parts. It loses unity and focus and that in turn loses the audience. Therefore the movie will mostly have to be written by the script writers. Script writers are notorious for being poor at generating stories, their main purpose being to take a story and recast it so that it can be presented in visual form. For it to be good, the script writers will have to be both good writers and familiar with the game and the Forgotten Realms world. Look at how the D&D movie turned out, then tell me why you expect them to do better with BG.
At least BG wouldn't have to be hand-fed the storyline like in LotR. There's a base storyline, but it can and should be expanded on from there. Unlike in LotR, you aren't given some characters and their dialogue and then told to adapt it to the silver screen. Instead, you're given a protagonist whose only set characteristic is their heritage. Everything else, even the protagonist's sex, is up to the discretion of the player, or the writer in this case. You're given the NPCs, their appearances, their personalities, and their histories, but not what they say or how they act on their beliefs. Perhaps BG would be able to be a good movie, perhaps not. On paper, it looks much better than LotR, but that's taking a good number of X-factors for granted. Consider BG done with the talent of the LotR movie team. Do you think it would be beaten by, meet, or exceed LotR?
The fundamental flaw of your argument is that you are assuming that someone with Tolkien's talent for telling a story will take the concepts in BG and turn them into a good story. Then you are assuming that someone of Jackson's talent will take that good story and turn it into a good movie. It's possible. But look at the track record.
There hasn't been a single first rate book based on D&D that I've ever seen or heard of. (Yes, I know what I said above. But books are cheaper than movies. If someone could make a good story from a D&D game, the odds are much higher that it would appear as a book than as a movie.) So, clearly there is a gap to close between a good concept (of which there are many in RPG) and a good story based on that concept. So, that's hurdle number one.
Then this excellently told story (which at this point is purely hypothetical) must be made into a first rate movie. Now, how many movies are made each year? How many of those are even worth the time to watch? How many of those that are worth watching at least once are truly outstanding? Do you think that people wake up one day and say "I think I'll make a dull boring movie"? Even those that start with an excellent story often blow it. Look at the various strikes at Dune, or the few attempts with Heinlein's work.
So, you are claiming that a hypothetically great story written by some unknown screen writer based on the vague world and concepts of BG and made into an as yet mythical movie by some unnamed genius directer will be better than the existing reality of LotR. It is possible. But I'll put my money on the track record -- you can bet the long shot if you want. But don't tell me the long shot has the better chance until it moves from your mind to the track. ;)
And they don't say stupid things like "elvish" and "dwarfish" in BG. They're said "elven" and "dwarven", as it should be
Hmmm. First, I fear that Merriam Webster (www.m-w.com) doesn't see it your way. They have both "-ish" forms but neither "-en" ones. Second, Tolkien uses both forms, intentionally, for different purposes. And he even goes so far as to explain why. So, even in this small detail, BG is but half what LotR is. ;)
--Pete
Sorry, but look at the books made from games. All the one's I've looked at (too many by far) are inferior, with cardboard characters, stilted descriptive passages, linear and predictable plots and insipid writing. Look at the fantasy films based on the "group does quest to fight evil" genre. Again I've wasted my time on many. The only ones worth while that I know of are Hawk, the Slayer and Ladyhawk and even those two are pretty weak examples of movie making.
Since when does a good movie need to come from a book?
Since I never said that, I see no reason why I should defend it. A huge number of movies are not based on any book at all, and some of those were excellent. What a movie (or any other story for that matter) has to be based on is a solid concept. There isn't enough material in BG to make a movie if one excludes all the side quests and non-essential NPCs. And if one doesn't do that, then the movie becomes a morass of unconnected parts. It loses unity and focus and that in turn loses the audience. Therefore the movie will mostly have to be written by the script writers. Script writers are notorious for being poor at generating stories, their main purpose being to take a story and recast it so that it can be presented in visual form. For it to be good, the script writers will have to be both good writers and familiar with the game and the Forgotten Realms world. Look at how the D&D movie turned out, then tell me why you expect them to do better with BG.
At least BG wouldn't have to be hand-fed the storyline like in LotR. There's a base storyline, but it can and should be expanded on from there. Unlike in LotR, you aren't given some characters and their dialogue and then told to adapt it to the silver screen. Instead, you're given a protagonist whose only set characteristic is their heritage. Everything else, even the protagonist's sex, is up to the discretion of the player, or the writer in this case. You're given the NPCs, their appearances, their personalities, and their histories, but not what they say or how they act on their beliefs. Perhaps BG would be able to be a good movie, perhaps not. On paper, it looks much better than LotR, but that's taking a good number of X-factors for granted. Consider BG done with the talent of the LotR movie team. Do you think it would be beaten by, meet, or exceed LotR?
The fundamental flaw of your argument is that you are assuming that someone with Tolkien's talent for telling a story will take the concepts in BG and turn them into a good story. Then you are assuming that someone of Jackson's talent will take that good story and turn it into a good movie. It's possible. But look at the track record.
There hasn't been a single first rate book based on D&D that I've ever seen or heard of. (Yes, I know what I said above. But books are cheaper than movies. If someone could make a good story from a D&D game, the odds are much higher that it would appear as a book than as a movie.) So, clearly there is a gap to close between a good concept (of which there are many in RPG) and a good story based on that concept. So, that's hurdle number one.
Then this excellently told story (which at this point is purely hypothetical) must be made into a first rate movie. Now, how many movies are made each year? How many of those are even worth the time to watch? How many of those that are worth watching at least once are truly outstanding? Do you think that people wake up one day and say "I think I'll make a dull boring movie"? Even those that start with an excellent story often blow it. Look at the various strikes at Dune, or the few attempts with Heinlein's work.
So, you are claiming that a hypothetically great story written by some unknown screen writer based on the vague world and concepts of BG and made into an as yet mythical movie by some unnamed genius directer will be better than the existing reality of LotR. It is possible. But I'll put my money on the track record -- you can bet the long shot if you want. But don't tell me the long shot has the better chance until it moves from your mind to the track. ;)
And they don't say stupid things like "elvish" and "dwarfish" in BG. They're said "elven" and "dwarven", as it should be
Hmmm. First, I fear that Merriam Webster (www.m-w.com) doesn't see it your way. They have both "-ish" forms but neither "-en" ones. Second, Tolkien uses both forms, intentionally, for different purposes. And he even goes so far as to explain why. So, even in this small detail, BG is but half what LotR is. ;)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?