By hung up, do you mean insistent that it will be the new telltale licence?
Two things, telltale said they're doing a "comic book licence that just got a show made about it" (only one we can think of is that and Human Target) and there were rumors prior to this tease that a Walking Dead game was being made.
Though, if by hung up you mean: why do people care about a zombie show? I couldn't answer that- I like the show, but its not one of my favirotes. (I'd still buy the game though, my wallet is a slave to Telltale's projects)
The Walking Dead is an EXCELLENT running comic series published by Image Comics. It's essentially a zombie movie that doesn't end, which frankly really does work obscenely well for a variety of reasons, and it's able to do things that a zombie film by itself wouldn't be able to do. It has been running in monthly issues since 2003, so there's a lot of story material available there. It's a very strongly character-driven narrative, to the point that I'd heavily recommend it to people who may not be "zombie fans". It definitely has its dark moments, and they can get pretty bleak, but man do I love it. I strongly recommend the comic to anybody, and this recommendation comes from a person that strongly prefers short series and one-shots to ongoing series that don't have an end in sight, and a person that doesn't care for the geek "zombie meme". The Compendium contains the first couple years of issues and can be had rather cheaply if you shop around.
It has a recently-launched AMC Original Series(and we all know that only the TV show matters when it comes to when a property was launched, mirite?) which is actually pretty brilliantly shot and the effects are phenomenal. All the same, I feel somewhat mixed about it. A lot about the production is top-notch, while the script wavers between excellent deviation, adaptation, and terrible deviation. I haven't seen all the episodes of the season honestly, and I should catch up, but I do think it does lose something in the translation. Still, definitely not a bad way to go, especially considering the current TV landscape and especially as a supplement to rather than a replacement for the comic.
I think the Compendium is the best price-for-money option, really. You can get one "volume" for about $10, whereas the Compendium has 8 of them for $25-40. Seriously, the first 48 monthly issues for that price is not bad at all. It's true though, that the first volume by itself costs less than the whole damn compendium.
I know the borders books in my town have the collection well stocked and displayed prominently.
the series fits the cryptic hints so well I will be surprised if its NOT the game they are talking about.
But I am trying really hard not to get pumped about it... because its still a ways off for the announcement and I do not want to be too disappointed if it ends up being Cathy that probably would have a show on lifetime or something, I mean who really knows what is going on, on that channel?
The show got significantly worse as it went along. It started off very promising, but then had some awful storylines with characters doing unrealistic things to keep their "humanity" and "hope" alive or whatever rather than simply surviving, which is what we really want to see and in reality is what they would be doing. There are some terrible "emotional" family moments and such, and then it tries to turn into Lost as well.
Anyway I'm still on board for season 2 probably, but it went from a potential 5/5 to a 2/5.
5 new seasons? wow, I much prefer quality over quantity. We'll just have to wait and see.
5 new projects, which it has been stated won't run concurrently, and which have not been announced as "seasons". The "projects" could include pilots or other non-episodic games.
Semi-related to the topic, I might be alone in this, but I hate it when a TV/film adaptation of something changes absolutely nothing from the source material.
If I wanted the same thing, I'd just read the source material again. Now, that's not to say I want them to go mental and do whatever, I think they should respect the setting and characters, I just don't think the plot has to be 100% the same. Certain things work in one medium, but would just be stupid in another.
Example: Lord of the Rings. Is anyone really mad that they didn't spend several years dicking about in the Shire before setting out for Rivendell? No. That would have been a boring waste of time in a film.
Semi-related to the topic, I might be alone in this, but I hate it when a TV/film adaptation of something changes absolutely nothing from the source material.
If I wanted the same thing, I'd just read the source material again. Now, that's not to say I want them to go mental and do whatever, I think they should respect the setting and characters, I just don't think the plot has to be 100% the same. Certain things work in one medium, but would just be stupid in another.
Example: Lord of the Rings. Is anyone really mad that they didn't spend several years dicking about in the Shire before setting out for Rivendell? No. That would have been a boring waste of time in a film.
End tangent.
Funny that you mention The Lord of the Rings. It's my go to movie when I want to give an example of 'they should've followed the book godammit!'. My main peeve is the fall of Saruman.
But I get what you're saying. And agree. Just.. not on the LOTR part.
Semi-related to the topic, I might be alone in this, but I hate it when a TV/film adaptation of something changes absolutely nothing from the source material.
If I wanted the same thing, I'd just read the source material again. Now, that's not to say I want them to go mental and do whatever, I think they should respect the setting and characters, I just don't think the plot has to be 100% the same. Certain things work in one medium, but would just be stupid in another.
Example: Lord of the Rings. Is anyone really mad that they didn't spend several years dicking about in the Shire before setting out for Rivendell? No. That would have been a boring waste of time in a film.
End tangent.
I'm not sure I'd say I hate when they don't change anything, but I welcome adaptations that do if they're done by competent people. The internet commenters in every article so far about the upcoming Uncharted movie have been incredibly ignorant and overreactive. It's being done by the best director to ever tackle a video game movie (David O. Russell), and he sees something interesting in the concept - that's really all you need to know until you see a trailer.
No Country for Old Men changes very little, and the movie is arguably much better - so that goes against your bias.
I'm not sure I'd say I hate when they don't change anything, but I welcome adaptations that do if they're done by competent people.
This is, again, totally off-topic, but what the heck. An adaptation of a book to fit the screen is brutal work. To make it work, you have to slice the whole book up, take out its innards, reassemble parts of them and then insert your own things at the parts which would just not fit otherwise. I'm absolutely with you in that this needs extremely competent people. The LotR triology has excellent examples of both brillant adaptations and massive, unbelievable adaptation failures. Aragorn letting Frodo go to Mordor alone, gently closing Frodo's hand around the ring? What a great scene. Frodo telling Sam to "go home" in the middle of Mordor? Honestly, who took out Phillipa's brain when she wrote that?
The present "Hobbit" movie is doomed from the beginning, as Peter Jackson obviously wishes to make this a LotR cameo "class of 2001" freak show that has nothing to do with the book. A lot of incredibly bad writing will go into desperately writing the old characters into the Hobbit movie, and to give them more and more scenes just to justify their presence. And this is exactly what Jackson's team was and is really, really, really bad at.
Whooops. Back to topic: Games should not exactly be movie/TV series "adaptations" in that they are telling the same story. But needless to say, TTG was never interested in doing that. Whatever they do, and whatever gameplay path they're heading, it will be new stuff or not done at all.
This is, again, totally off-topic, but what the heck. An adaptation of a book to fit the screen is brutal work. To make it work, you have to slice the whole book up, take out its innards, reassemble parts of them and then insert your own things at the parts which would just not fit otherwise. I'm absolutely with you in that this needs extremely competent people. The LotR triology has excellent examples of both brillant adaptations and massive, unbelievable adaptation failures. Aragorn letting Frodo go to Mordor alone, gently closing Frodo's hand around the ring? What a great scene. Frodo telling Sam to "go home" in the middle of Mordor? Honestly, who took out Phillipa's brain when she wrote that?
The present "Hobbit" movie is doomed from the beginning, as Peter Jackson obviously wishes to make this a LotR cameo "class of 2001" freak show that has nothing to do with the book. A lot of incredibly bad writing will go into desperately writing the old characters into the Hobbit movie, and to give them more and more scenes just to justify their presence. And this is exactly what Jackson's team was and is really, really, really bad at.
Whooops. Back to topic: Games should not exactly be movie/TV series "adaptations" in that they are telling the same story. But needless to say, TTG was never interested in doing that. Whatever they do, and whatever gameplay path they're heading, it will be new stuff or not done at all.
It's not that bad, Gandalf is clearly explained, Legolas's dad is in the book, and it'll probably be framed as old Biblo telling story to Young Frodo. Plus the Seventh Doctor.
It's not that bad, Gandalf is clearly explained, Legolas's dad is in the book, and it'll probably be framed as old Biblo telling story to Young Frodo. Plus the Seventh Doctor.
Well, Gandalf has his place in the Hobbit, of course, and all hail Ian McKellen. Apart from this, it IS bad. It's seriously bad. In addition to Bloom, Eliah Wood will be in it as Frodo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Christopher Lee as Saruman, and possibly Ian Holm as Bilbo yet again and rumour has it, they're trying to get Viggo Mortensen as well. So many people pushed into a movie for no reason at all can only result in an adaptation desaster of epic proportion. It's my favourite book (yes, far BEFORE LotR), and they're making it "LotR IV - the return of just plain everyone".
Still off the original topic, but I'm curious to know what you guys think/thought of the Watchmen movie, given it was a pretty damn faithful adaptation and you seem to think those are bad things.
Still off the original topic, but I'm curious to know what you guys think/thought of the Watchmen movie, given it was a pretty damn faithful adaptation and you seem to think those are bad things.
Haven't watched and I'm scared to do so. I've never read the comics and it doesn't feel like the movie is a good starting point. It's faithful alright, but not everyone liked it because of this aspect.
A book and a movie are two completely different things. What works in a book may not work in a movie and vice versa. I've long since quit trying to compare a movie to its original book. In a book the descriptions are there, but the readers mind will build the world and all its details. In a movie that world is already conceptualized. A movie will never hold up to the book. The books world is a unique vision created in the readers mind.
With that in mind ( no pun intended) I usually enjoy what both movies and books have to offer.
"Faithful" wouldn't be the word I'd use. "Not obscenely diverged until the ending" would be the wording I'd use. It also doesn't help that there are aspects of The Watchmen that simply can't be adapted into the format of a film.
Well, Gandalf has his place in the Hobbit, of course, and all hail Ian McKellen. Apart from this, it IS bad. It's seriously bad. In addition to Bloom, Eliah Wood will be in it as Frodo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Christopher Lee as Saruman, and possibly Ian Holm as Bilbo yet again and rumour has it, they're trying to get Viggo Mortensen as well. So many people pushed into a movie for no reason at all can only result in an adaptation desaster of epic proportion.
I'll accept Wood and Holm as narrators in a frame story, and though it's been a long time since I read it, I believe there's a point in the book (or at least the timeline of the book) when Gandalf goes to confer with Saruman, so that's an easy cameo. Blanchett and Mortensen are a bit of a stretch, but as long as they're just brief cameos, it's not going to bother me TOO much.
Jackson knows what he's doing, regardless of what the purists want. The Hobbit is one of my favorite books of all time, and this is coming from someone who couldn't get through Fellowship of the Ring(the book), and I personally prefer the film to what I've read of the book. I prefer The Hobbit as it's more of an adventure story, and LOTR is this big massive epic. I'm more for adventure and less for epic. The Hobbit is going to be a great movie for me regardless of cuts or additions, and naysayers be screwed.
I haven't seen Watchmen, but I plan to eventually as I enjoyed the comic. I do think Watchmen is a bit overrated though.
I take your blow, and I take it to my heart; I wasn't born the naysayer you see before you. We can agree that Peter Jackson knows what he's doing, but we probably disagree fundamentally about what that is.
I take your blow, and I take it to my heart; I wasn't born the naysayer you see before you.
Vainamoinen once had a family. Four fathers. Seven mothers. Twenty brothers. Ten sisters. Then Peter Jackson rode into town, and shot them all dead. Now he's out on the street. A hobo. A hobo out for vengeance. Vainamoinen is a bum who doesn't respect the law. He's tired of corrupt cops and drug pedaling scum. He must avenge his family and kill Peter Jackson. He's out to take them all down, with a hip flask, a shotgun, and his own brand of badass justice. He's on the edge!
"Faithful" wouldn't be the word I'd use. "Not obscenely diverged until the ending" would be the wording I'd use. It also doesn't help that there are aspects of The Watchmen that simply can't be adapted into the format of a film.
The ending, I would argue, being one of those things that couldn't be adapted. Not if the story was to have any semblance of credibility, anyway.
But anyway. I couldn't get through the comic, but enjoyed the film to a degree. Thanks for letting me know your views, they're always interesting to hear.
I'd like to clarify that I don't HATE the Watchmen movie, far rom it. I think it was one of the best attempts that was possible given the work they were adapting. It's simply not a replacement for the comic, because the comic itself is a work of art that is deeply rooted in the medium of sequential art, and one that uses this medium to the fullest. It's not that they fell short of doing a perfect adaptation, it's that a perfect adaptation simply can't be done. Given this, they did a great job and produced a solid product, with very few things I'd call missteps or mistakes.
The Walking Dead
A new ToMI game
A new "At the inventory" game
A full Puzzle Agent season
Maybe some other new IP, or possibly a new Sam and Max season.
I don't know if they'd be justified in calling them "major" if they're continuations of existing projects, though, so I don't know.
Well, Gandalf has his place in the Hobbit, of course, and all hail Ian McKellen. Apart from this, it IS bad. It's seriously bad. In addition to Bloom, Eliah Wood will be in it as Frodo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Christopher Lee as Saruman, and possibly Ian Holm as Bilbo yet again and rumour has it, they're trying to get Viggo Mortensen as well. So many people pushed into a movie for no reason at all can only result in an adaptation desaster of epic proportion. It's my favourite book (yes, far BEFORE LotR), and they're making it "LotR IV - the return of just plain everyone".
Just had to chime in to say that Galadriel and Saruman absolutely fit into the frame of the story. While Bilbo was traveling with the dwarves, Gandalf urged the White Council (which included Saruman and Galadriel, among others) to assault Dol Guldur and drive the Necromancer (Sauron) out of Mirkwood. Sauron then retreated to Mordor and rebuilt his forces, which leads right into LotR. These events weren't described in the Hobbit, but they were taking place at the same time, and including them will both provide continuity with set up the trilogy that follows. And make for some great scenes, in my opinion. Oh, and Bilbo will be played by Martin Freeman, not Ian Holm.
As for what the new Telltale games will be, I wouldn't be too upset if a second ToMI season wasn't among them. As much as I enjoyed Season One, and I did love it, I found the episodic formet detracted from the experience somewhat. I'll have to join the minority who's hoping for more Strongbad.
Oh, and Bilbo will be played by Martin Freeman, not Ian Holm.
Mostly. But don't rule out Holm yet. This is a class of 2001 reunion, he'll find his way in, in a framing story that serves no narrative purpose but to bring him in. Just to put this in the right perspective: Ian Holm was the most perfect Bilbo, EVAR, in the LotR movies, and I could watch his scenes dozens of times a day without getting tired of his brilliant performance. Still, I don't see any purpose of having him in the Hobbit movie. None.
@Fawful: Kill Peter Jackson! Now there's a thought!
Actually, me and Petey, we might both be bums on the street, searching for lost glory. He might drunkenly wave with the bottle of wine in one hand and an Oscar in the other. Peter Jackson has lost his family, but he will bring them back together at all costs. He will reclaim his former grandeur by repeating, step-by-step, everything he has done ten years ago. He will make the same movie again.
I'd like to clarify that I don't HATE the Watchmen movie, far rom it. I think it was one of the best attempts that was possible given the work they were adapting. It's simply not a replacement for the comic, because the comic itself is a work of art that is deeply rooted in the medium of sequential art, and one that uses this medium to the fullest. It's not that they fell short of doing a perfect adaptation, it's that a perfect adaptation simply can't be done. Given this, they did a great job and produced a solid product, with very few things I'd call missteps or mistakes.
Farscape? That's completely fahzbot!
I still have bad memories about that train wreck called Farscape: The game
So many bad things, not even the original cast saved that one.
Anyway, I doubt it'll work as an adventure game since
a) The story is pretty much closed
b) It is too action oriented
c) Solutions for problems are mostly action-based
d) [For Telltale] The cast is too large, the scenery is probably too complex.
Comments
here is the first book on Image comics page.
http://www.imagecomics.com/iconline.php?title=walking_dead_001&page=cover&resize=now
and the page for the show on AMC
http://www.amctv.com/originals/The-Walking-Dead/
Motion Comic... I usually hate these but this one was done well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riKsI6covPA
and just because its has an awesome song by the eels
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ocZtE9U29w
Two things, telltale said they're doing a "comic book licence that just got a show made about it" (only one we can think of is that and Human Target) and there were rumors prior to this tease that a Walking Dead game was being made.
Though, if by hung up you mean: why do people care about a zombie show? I couldn't answer that- I like the show, but its not one of my favirotes. (I'd still buy the game though, my wallet is a slave to Telltale's projects)
It has a recently-launched AMC Original Series(and we all know that only the TV show matters when it comes to when a property was launched, mirite?) which is actually pretty brilliantly shot and the effects are phenomenal. All the same, I feel somewhat mixed about it. A lot about the production is top-notch, while the script wavers between excellent deviation, adaptation, and terrible deviation. I haven't seen all the episodes of the season honestly, and I should catch up, but I do think it does lose something in the translation. Still, definitely not a bad way to go, especially considering the current TV landscape and especially as a supplement to rather than a replacement for the comic.
the series fits the cryptic hints so well I will be surprised if its NOT the game they are talking about.
But I am trying really hard not to get pumped about it... because its still a ways off for the announcement and I do not want to be too disappointed if it ends up being Cathy that probably would have a show on lifetime or something, I mean who really knows what is going on, on that channel?
Anyway I'm still on board for season 2 probably, but it went from a potential 5/5 to a 2/5.
Boy oh boy are you in for a surprise "WTF IS THAT NEW STORYLINE???" moment...
If I wanted the same thing, I'd just read the source material again. Now, that's not to say I want them to go mental and do whatever, I think they should respect the setting and characters, I just don't think the plot has to be 100% the same. Certain things work in one medium, but would just be stupid in another.
Example: Lord of the Rings. Is anyone really mad that they didn't spend several years dicking about in the Shire before setting out for Rivendell? No. That would have been a boring waste of time in a film.
End tangent.
Funny that you mention The Lord of the Rings. It's my go to movie when I want to give an example of 'they should've followed the book godammit!'. My main peeve is the fall of Saruman.
But I get what you're saying. And agree. Just.. not on the LOTR part.
I'm not sure I'd say I hate when they don't change anything, but I welcome adaptations that do if they're done by competent people. The internet commenters in every article so far about the upcoming Uncharted movie have been incredibly ignorant and overreactive. It's being done by the best director to ever tackle a video game movie (David O. Russell), and he sees something interesting in the concept - that's really all you need to know until you see a trailer.
No Country for Old Men changes very little, and the movie is arguably much better - so that goes against your bias.
This is, again, totally off-topic, but what the heck. An adaptation of a book to fit the screen is brutal work. To make it work, you have to slice the whole book up, take out its innards, reassemble parts of them and then insert your own things at the parts which would just not fit otherwise. I'm absolutely with you in that this needs extremely competent people. The LotR triology has excellent examples of both brillant adaptations and massive, unbelievable adaptation failures. Aragorn letting Frodo go to Mordor alone, gently closing Frodo's hand around the ring? What a great scene. Frodo telling Sam to "go home" in the middle of Mordor? Honestly, who took out Phillipa's brain when she wrote that?
The present "Hobbit" movie is doomed from the beginning, as Peter Jackson obviously wishes to make this a LotR cameo "class of 2001" freak show that has nothing to do with the book. A lot of incredibly bad writing will go into desperately writing the old characters into the Hobbit movie, and to give them more and more scenes just to justify their presence. And this is exactly what Jackson's team was and is really, really, really bad at.
Whooops. Back to topic: Games should not exactly be movie/TV series "adaptations" in that they are telling the same story. But needless to say, TTG was never interested in doing that. Whatever they do, and whatever gameplay path they're heading, it will be new stuff or not done at all.
It's not that bad, Gandalf is clearly explained, Legolas's dad is in the book, and it'll probably be framed as old Biblo telling story to Young Frodo. Plus the Seventh Doctor.
Well, Gandalf has his place in the Hobbit, of course, and all hail Ian McKellen. Apart from this, it IS bad. It's seriously bad. In addition to Bloom, Eliah Wood will be in it as Frodo, Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Christopher Lee as Saruman, and possibly Ian Holm as Bilbo yet again and rumour has it, they're trying to get Viggo Mortensen as well. So many people pushed into a movie for no reason at all can only result in an adaptation desaster of epic proportion. It's my favourite book (yes, far BEFORE LotR), and they're making it "LotR IV - the return of just plain everyone".
Haven't watched and I'm scared to do so. I've never read the comics and it doesn't feel like the movie is a good starting point. It's faithful alright, but not everyone liked it because of this aspect.
With that in mind ( no pun intended) I usually enjoy what both movies and books have to offer.
I'll accept Wood and Holm as narrators in a frame story, and though it's been a long time since I read it, I believe there's a point in the book (or at least the timeline of the book) when Gandalf goes to confer with Saruman, so that's an easy cameo. Blanchett and Mortensen are a bit of a stretch, but as long as they're just brief cameos, it's not going to bother me TOO much.
I haven't seen Watchmen, but I plan to eventually as I enjoyed the comic. I do think Watchmen is a bit overrated though.
I take your blow, and I take it to my heart; I wasn't born the naysayer you see before you. We can agree that Peter Jackson knows what he's doing, but we probably disagree fundamentally about what that is.
Vainamoinen once had a family. Four fathers. Seven mothers. Twenty brothers. Ten sisters. Then Peter Jackson rode into town, and shot them all dead. Now he's out on the street. A hobo. A hobo out for vengeance. Vainamoinen is a bum who doesn't respect the law. He's tired of corrupt cops and drug pedaling scum. He must avenge his family and kill Peter Jackson. He's out to take them all down, with a hip flask, a shotgun, and his own brand of badass justice. He's on the edge!
But anyway. I couldn't get through the comic, but enjoyed the film to a degree. Thanks for letting me know your views, they're always interesting to hear.
The Walking Dead
A new ToMI game
A new "At the inventory" game
A full Puzzle Agent season
Maybe some other new IP, or possibly a new Sam and Max season.
I don't know if they'd be justified in calling them "major" if they're continuations of existing projects, though, so I don't know.
Just had to chime in to say that Galadriel and Saruman absolutely fit into the frame of the story. While Bilbo was traveling with the dwarves, Gandalf urged the White Council (which included Saruman and Galadriel, among others) to assault Dol Guldur and drive the Necromancer (Sauron) out of Mirkwood. Sauron then retreated to Mordor and rebuilt his forces, which leads right into LotR. These events weren't described in the Hobbit, but they were taking place at the same time, and including them will both provide continuity with set up the trilogy that follows. And make for some great scenes, in my opinion. Oh, and Bilbo will be played by Martin Freeman, not Ian Holm.
As for what the new Telltale games will be, I wouldn't be too upset if a second ToMI season wasn't among them. As much as I enjoyed Season One, and I did love it, I found the episodic formet detracted from the experience somewhat. I'll have to join the minority who's hoping for more Strongbad.
Mostly. But don't rule out Holm yet. This is a class of 2001 reunion, he'll find his way in, in a framing story that serves no narrative purpose but to bring him in. Just to put this in the right perspective: Ian Holm was the most perfect Bilbo, EVAR, in the LotR movies, and I could watch his scenes dozens of times a day without getting tired of his brilliant performance. Still, I don't see any purpose of having him in the Hobbit movie. None.
@Fawful: Kill Peter Jackson! Now there's a thought!
Actually, me and Petey, we might both be bums on the street, searching for lost glory. He might drunkenly wave with the bottle of wine in one hand and an Oscar in the other. Peter Jackson has lost his family, but he will bring them back together at all costs. He will reclaim his former grandeur by repeating, step-by-step, everything he has done ten years ago. He will make the same movie again.
And back on topic: Farscape. Discuss.
I still have bad memories about that train wreck called Farscape: The game
So many bad things, not even the original cast saved that one.
Anyway, I doubt it'll work as an adventure game since
a) The story is pretty much closed
b) It is too action oriented
c) Solutions for problems are mostly action-based
d) [For Telltale] The cast is too large, the scenery is probably too complex.
Weird Science
Misfits of science
Dr Slump
Sam&Max
I just listed stuff thats in my room that could be the projects
Sam and Max Season 5
Sam and Max Season 6
Bill and Ted
Starsky and Hutch
And that would be the most epicest (good or bad) announcement ever. BTW I'm seriously up for a Bill and Ted game. That'd be the most triumphant.
If we're going for suggestions that obscure, I'll toss in Waxworks or Phantasmagoria. On the subject o' horror, also Gabriel Knight.