I sure hope not. I loathe all the actors on that show
I like that show a lot, even though I'm nearly 29 years old. It delivers its content very well. The father reminds me of Daria's father, from the cartoon show.
The only bad actor is Malcolm himself. He stares into the camera all the time.
Um, how about Earl Boen, the same guy who voiced him in CMI and EMI?
yeah I guess. Although I never really got used to that. The Lechuck I remember most was from MI and MI2 when he didn't have a voice. Lets say you couldn't get him, who would you tap?
Hey, maybe they should do it with stop motion animation,(you know, like chicken run,). That way they could use the original voice actors from CMI and EMI.
Hey, maybe they should do it with stop motion animation,(you know, like chicken run,). That way they could use the original voice actors from CMI and EMI.
an interesting idea but in the words of pedro: "very no!"
Off Topic!!! What happenend to computer games and movies, A full throttle movie with Mel Gibson would be cool, or would people just think of mad max? A monkey Island movie would be even cooler, with Bud Bundy from married with children as Guybrush or Alex Winter from Bill and Teds excellent adventure. We all know Bud Bundy and Bill S Preston now don't we (losers like us should know). Natalie Portman would make an awesome Elaine Marley. Vin Deisel as Meathook. Tom Hanks can pass as Otis. Tommy Chong as Hermen toothrot, or even better George Carlin; hell, david lettermen could probably pass as Herman, they both have that "He Heee" when they laugh. And for Lechuck, thats gonna be a hard one. I'll let everyone else try to take a shot at that one.
I'm quoting myself, but I also wanted to add that Ben Stiller would make an awesome Largo LaGrande
Ahhh, Ben Stiller isn't a bad choice, but I'm feeling spicy today so I'm going to go with someone short like Danny Devito. Ohh, and relax. That image is only 16KB.
Yuck! that picture of the pantera member is very disturbing, the fact that he is sweating his ass off and swigning his hair around and launching nasty lice and sweat into the crowd is just grotesque (however it is spelt).
An animation Ehhh. They probably wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting it off the ground since Pirates of the Carribean. It's just so similar with characters and everything.
Ghost Pirate Lechuck- Geoffrey Rush in a Pirate Suite
Clueless Guybrush Threepwood- Clueless Orlando Bloom
Elaine Marley, Govener of Melee island and Love Intrest- Kiera Knightly, Goveners daughter and love intrest
Uncoordinated and unsober Mick Jagger- Uncoordinated and unsober Johnny Depp,(yeah I know Micks not in the game, but why not have him in the movie)
Sure, the storys are far from identical, but how many of the non monkey island fans would buy it. Ahh well, I've still got my fingers crossed for Grim Fandango.
You're right about public reaction. People who don't know better (and let's face it, only a small percentage of the movie-going population even know what the hell MI is) will immediately label the story as copy-cat, cookie-cutter, or what have you. A lot of folks will think it's trying to ride the success of Pirates.
Oh, and I don't ever want to see a Grim movie made. Ever. That's a grave injustice. Really, I want to see none of the adventures adapted to feature films, but at least Monkey Island is remotely possible in terms of reworking the story.
Yuck! that picture of the pantera member is very disturbing, the fact that he is sweating his ass off and swigning his hair around and launching nasty lice and sweat into the crowd is just grotesque (however it is spelt).
You must be Amish. Nobody should talk about Dime like that.
On a side note, I do see a lot of MI in Pirates of the Carribean.
You could rework Grims storyline. It has everything a it needs to be turned into a movie, and some things it doesn't but should be put in there anyway. And instead of cutting it too short, they could make it into a mini series, that way you lose a minimal amount of the story so it can be true to the game.
Yeah, into a piece of crap. Let's face it, the game is perfect as-is and making a film version (or any kind of adaptation for that matter) can bring no good. The story is full and complete, and it stands on its own as a masterpiece.
The reason I brought up Monkey Island is because you could make a whole new story in the same "world."
Can bring no good? If a film version was made ,(and well I might add,) then it brings Grims great story to a wider audiance. Lets face it, games outdate very quickly with new operating systems and everything, make it into a movie and not only does the movie live on, but the memory of the game lives on in a small part of that. So why not make something good, even better. Sure it's a risk, but every choice you make is a risk.
First of all, the video game itself is more complete and satisying than a movie version could ever be. A film version would simplify everything, and, man, there are just so many reasons why it wouldn't work...why no one should even TRY to make it that I don't even want to list.
Think of the game as already like a movie, albeit interactive and with a lot more stuff going on. THERE'S NO POINT in making a half-assed attempt to bring it to theaters (not that I have to worry about such a thing ever being greenlighted thanks to the game's less-than-popular status). You can't compare something like Grim to a novel that can just be "adapted." And what's this about giving the game a wider audience? That time has passed. The game would have had a wider audience if it wasn't marketed by a bunch of jackasses. How is spending million of dollars on a feature more worthwhile than just advertising the game itself?
Firstly, it doesn't have to be "half-assed". In the right hands it could be brilliant. Secondly, simplifing the game isn't as bad as you may think, every game has it's downside, when making a movie of the game, the game reveals what didn't work about the original plot,so learning from the mistakes you could actualy improve the story. Every movie has it's downside as well so thereis no doubt that some mistakes will be made. Thirdly, the games less popular status could actualy be used as and advantage. It would mean that the movie could stand out in it's own right without a bunch of fan skeptics hounding about how the movie should be more like the game. It has to be different to the game, otherwise it can't be seen as an individual thing. That's the place where it becomes half-assed. Finally, they wouldn't be just spending millions of dollars, the money would be coming back in as well, don't consider it an advert.
Firstly, it doesn't have to be "half-assed". In the right hands it could be brilliant.
The very idea of a producer making a movie out of Grim is half-assed. Who are the "right hands" that could make this travesty brilliant? Besides nobody.
Secondly, simplifing the game isn't as bad as you may think, every game has it's downside, when making a movie of the game, the game reveals what didn't work about the original plot, and sure every movie has it's downside as well.
...what?
Thirdly, the games less popular status could actualy be used as and advantage. It would mean that the movie could stand out in it's own right without a bunch of fan skeptics hounding about how the movie should be more like the game. It has to be different to the game, otherwise it can't be seen as an individual thing. That's the place where it becomes half-assed.
The problem is that a Grim-like story would never be greenlighted in the real world of Hollywood blockbusters, and the fans of the game would make up a large bulk of its intended audience anyway, so you'd beter believe there would be fan skeptics. The bottom line is to not even try. Grim does not call out to be put on another medium, and it can't benefit from it, either. It's not something to be interpreted on film. The game is what it is, and trying to adapt it is stupid, pointless, and harmful to the original work.
Grim tells a specific story in a specific world. There's no room to make it "an individual thing" without comprimising the original vision of the game. I would only feel comfortable with the project being headed by one man: Tim Schafer. And I'm pretty sure he's not stupid, so it won't happen.
Finally, they wouldn't be just spending millions of dollars, the money would be coming back in as well, don't consider it an advert.
Uh, yeah, making money is kind of the reason studios release movies. The thing is that Grim would be very expensive and has a non-mainstream storyline. Do you see this thing even breaking even in our current moviegoing society? Neither does the most idiotic hotshot producer. The idea wouldn't even get off the ground, much less funded with any sort of reasonable budget. And money "coming back in" is never a given, especially when you're dealing with something original and risky.
The very idea of a producer making a movie out of Grim is half-assed. Who are the "right hands" that could make this travesty brilliant? Besides nobody.
You said it yourself, Tim Schafer is the right hands. But there is more than one person capable of making a Grim Movie, there are good directors out there that would kill for a job like this.
Grims Storyline could be greenlighted. Sure it's suggestive that there is a Mexican afterlife, but it sheads a little light on death, portraying it as a journey in it's own right. This makes it alot more non intimidating for younger audiances then other movies that touch up on the subject. Teenagers wouldn't be bothered by it and they are the generation that goes to the movies most oftern. Grim has a great plotline, it could defiantly go well, just saying that it wouldn't be a sucess doesn't prove that it can't draw in the crowds. Why wouldn't it be a sucess? I've said it before, it's not pointless. People can profit from this, Grim lives on long after the game dies, and it raises concepts that alot of people haven't considered, and what about entertainment, people want to be entertained, otherwise we wouldn't have movies at all.
The world Grim is set in is diverse enought. It doesn't even have to be exactly the same as in the game. It can be made individual as long as the director doesn't feel held back by the game, but more uses it as a guideline.
Uh, yeah, making money is kind of the reason studios release movies. The thing is that Grim would be very expensive and has a non-mainstream storyline. Do you see this thing even breaking even in our current moviegoing society?
Of course I can see it breaking even, I can see it going way past that. I wouldn't be here argueing with you if I didn't. I don't know why you think there is no audiance for it. Just because the game didn't hit it big doesn't mean a movie can't. It was and adventure game, most gamers didn't look kindly to them when they had other genres they could play. The only reason gamers didn't like it was because they either hadn't tried adventure games or that they rather go with the run of the mill rpg three selves down. With movies it's a different game altogether. Firstly your not paying 30 bucks. Secondly choice is alot smaller with movies. Thirdly with a good advertising campaign cinema patrons wiil have a better idea of what there paying for. With the Grim adventure game people didn't know what they would be getting into because there was nothing to say to them, You'll like this if... when there in the middle of shopping.
You said it yourself, Tim Schafer is the right hands. But there is more than one person capable of making a Grim Movie, there are good directors out there that would kill for a job like this.
There are no other people capable of making a good Grim movie, whether they'd be willing to kill for it or not.
Grims Storyline could be greenlighted. Sure it's suggestive that there is a Mexican afterlife, but it sheads a little light on death, portraying it as a journey in it's own right. This makes it alot more non intimidating for younger audiances then other movies that touch up on the subject. Teenagers wouldn't be bothered by it and they are the generation that goes to the movies most oftern.
Woah. I'm not talking about the story containing questionable content. I'm talking about the fact that major studios generally don't go for extremely expensive pictures with a wacky storyline. Tons of great ideas get killed before materialization because suits don't think they'll rack in the dough. Even in the video game industry Grim was a bit bizarre upon release (not that I think this makes it inaccessible for audiences. it's marketing departments that don't seem to care for it).
Grim has a great plotline, it could defiantly go well, just saying that it wouldn't be a sucess doesn't prove that it can't draw in the crowds. Why wouldn't it be a sucess? I've said it before, it's not pointless. People can profit from this, Grim lives on long after the game dies, and it raises concepts that alot of people haven't considered, and what about entertainment, people want to be entertained, otherwise we wouldn't have movies at all.
So all you're worried about is people getting rich and audiences being entertained? What about the integrity of the story? Explain to me how Grim would somehow make a movie that isn't a complete shame to the game?
See? It can't be done.
And this concern about "the game living on" with the film makes no sense whatsoever. The game will never die so long as there are people who remember and enjoy it. I'd rather Grim remain the cult masterpiece that it is and never gaining a wider audience if the only alternate is seeing it completely fucked up on the big screen in an effort to appease the generally popcorn moviegoing public. If your main concern is the game living on, then figure out a way to get the game itself more popular instead of desiring it ravaged.
Oh, and right on about your stance on entertainment. If only it pertained to anything you said.
The world Grim is set in is diverse enought. It doesn't even have to be exactly the same as in the game. It can be made individual as long as the director doesn't feel held back by the game, but more uses it as a guideline.
I think this is where we disagree the most. The Grim world (the 8th underworld) is the setting for the game's very specific story. Are you suggesting we explore the creative possibilities that the world itself offers without any of the former characters? I suppose it could be done, but it would be sort of pointless and any original writer would come up with his own world. And if you're going to follow the Manny plot that the game does, you'd better follow damned closely (which of course can't be done without fucking it up, so everyone loses ).
You mention the director being original. The way I see it, Tim Schafer was the director of the video game. Games are more complicated (or can be I should say, as otherwise I may find myself in an argument I'd rather not be involved with) than novels or films in that they have interaction. To me making a film version of Grim is like remaking a movie except even worse because the game was originally so much more complete, and immerses the player into the world in a way that an adaptation never can.
Of course I can see it breaking even, I can see it going way past that. I wouldn't be here argueing with you if I didn't. I don't know why you think there is no audiance for it. Just because the game didn't hit it big doesn't mean a movie can't. It was and adventure game, most gamers didn't look kindly to them when they had other genres they could play. The only reason gamers didn't like it was because they either hadn't tried adventure games or that they rather go with the run of the mill rpg three selves down. With movies it's a different game altogether. Firstly your not paying 30 bucks. Secondly choice is alot smaller with movies. Thirdly with a good advertising campaign cinema patrons wiil have a better idea of what there paying for. With the Grim adventure game people didn't know what they would be getting into because there was nothing to say to them, You'll like this if... when there in the middle of shopping.
If you are so sure this film would be extremely profitable, then you're a very optimistic person. I never said there wasn't an audience for this sort of entertainment, but I don't think it's big enough to make such a big budget movie turn a profit (assuming of course the impossible event of its being greenlighted in the first place).
For the record, the game sold poorly due to unbelievably bad marketing. I can't tell you the game would have broken sales records, but it didn't even get the chance. Perhaps adventures being a niche market and the game having a rather bizarre story shut out a significant amount of potential players, but honestly the game wasn't backed with the sort of marketing plan it should have been.
There are ways people can find out what a game is like that is similar to movie trailers. They're called demos.
I understand what you mean about the greed behind producing movies, and I don't know if the suits would by it or not, but all I'm saying is I think Grim could go well in the Box office if the movie is made well.
I'm not just worried about people making money and being entertained, that's why I said and I quote
and it raises concepts that alot of people haven't considered
which has to do with what I said about the sprite of the game living on. I mean that what Grim Fandango sujests is remembered, by a lot more people.
I wasn't trying to say that they shouldn't follow the original plotline, just that it doesn't have to be a really tight bond.
Finally because I'm keeping it short, my last sentance was gramaticaly flawed. Heres what I meant to say; With the Grim adventure game people didn't know what they would be getting into because there was no advertising to tell the consumers to them" You'll like this if... " when there in the middle of shopping for a game.
I doubt anyone would go about making a movie based on Grim Fandango if they weren't a fan of the game themselves, as there isn't much of fanbase to base the sales upon.
That being said, the movie could end up crap or great or somewhere in-between. Who cares? Noone would be forcing you to see it, that's what I don't get about people moaning and complaining about big-budget adaptations of their favourite works. (re: lord of the rings, hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, dawn of the dead etc etc). Who cares? It isn't like the new work kills the old one, so that you can't go back and play/see the original. It just seems to me like "Boohooo, now everyone thinks this is <enter cult title here>. What about me, I was into it before everyone else. I felt special! Now I don't anymore. I'm just aaangrrrrrrrrryyyy. Grr."
People should use their energy on other things than getting wound up about their favorite franchise being "exploited", when in reality it's just you who feel exploited (for no reason whatsoever).
Seriously, I doubt that even Tim Shafer could come up with a passable movie adaptation of Grim Fandango.
Going slightly off-topic, just look at what Chris Roberts did to Wing Commander when adapting it as a movie. It plain sucked, because it didn't match up whatsoever to the story or characters we all knew, and it didn't have the big-name Hollywood stars that the games had. If they'd made it as a sequel of sorts to Prophecy, following a new crew in the same universe, I'd have been less disappointed, but taking all the elements of the game and completely changing them was a really bad idea.
If this is anything to go by, Tim Shafer and we fans should be happy never to see a Grim Fandango movie. As far as adventure game movie adaptations go, Pirates of the Caribbean is the closest we'll get, and as opposed to my initial misgivings about Disney basing a movie on a theme park ride, it turned out to be a very good movie! Of course, LucasArts based Monkey Island on that very same theme park ride, so in a sense it had been done successfully before.
I doubt anyone would go about making a movie based on Grim Fandango if they weren't a fan of the game themselves, as there isn't much of fanbase to base the sales upon.
And your point is? A film can very easily be horrible at the hands of a fan, you know.
That being said, the movie could end up crap or great or somewhere in-between. Who cares? Noone would be forcing you to see it, that's what I don't get about people moaning and complaining about big-budget adaptations of their favourite works. (re: lord of the rings, hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, dawn of the dead etc etc). Who cares? It isn't like the new work kills the old one, so that you can't go back and play/see the original. It just seems to me like "Boohooo, now everyone thinks this is <enter cult title here>. What about me, I was into it before everyone else. I felt special! Now I don't anymore. I'm just aaangrrrrrrrrryyyy. Grr."
The difference is Grim is not a literary work or anywhere near it. It's already a "movie" of sorts. And I'm not complaining (and fortunately won't have to since the damned project would thankfully never reach fruitition), but explaining why I think it would be a horrible idea in the first place. Just because you despise some fan reaction to the LOTR movies doesn't make a Grim movie a good idea, nor does it make arguments against it somehow invalid.
And your assertion that I somehow want Grim to remain a cult figure with a limited audiences is laughable. People don't like certain games because they feel like they're part of some special, secret group. They play games because they are good, and whether or not the game's popularity reflects that greatness in Grim's case is purely academic at this point. Believe it or not, some people like Grim because they think it's good, not just because it's an underdog or because they were "into it before everybody else." Some people actually want adventures to spread into mainstream.
Some people actually want adventures to spread into mainstream.
Uhm, yeah. That's why they sit on a messageboard using alot of energy arguing why a movieadaptation of a certain game would be such a terrible idea. If the game was converted into a movie and it sucked, it would atleast, if nothing else, bring adventures into the mainstream, and probably make it valid to produce a follow-up game aswell.
But you missed my point, I was arguing against arguing against some work of art being produced. If I think something is going to suck, I just don't waste any energy on it, it's not like i have to see it. If other people want to see it, let them see it. I think some of you points are valid, it's just that I don't care. You make it out like it would be a very negative thing if such a movie would be produced. I don't think it would.
Pirates of the Caribbean is the closest we'll get, and as opposed to my initial misgivings about Disney basing a movie on a theme park ride, it turned out to be a very good movie! Of course, LucasArts based Monkey Island on that very same theme park ride, so in a sense it had been done successfully before.
Which I'm happy with, the good thing is that they are making a number 2 and 3. Except in the next 2 Captain Jack Sparrows,(Johny Depp), father is in it. Rumour has it that Keith Richards has been cast for the part,
It's not to suprising seeing as Johny Depp was said to have based his character on Richards.
My nephew and I (both avid gamers) have said for many years that "Monkey Island" needs to be converted into a movie. It certainly has the exposure among gamers to have an already large audience base. Yes, there were similarities between MI and "Pirates of the Caribbean", but I don't think that a well-made MI can really be compared.
I want more Guybrush/Murray bantering! Those were some of the funniest scenes in MI3.
Any, let's be honest, if you get a team that's already good at CGI who can devote many hours, does anyone really *need* a major studio to back them up? Computer animation software, although expensive to individuals, is not out of the reach for a small production company, and even entry-level, video editing software now contains the ability to blue-screen.
I know, I'm being idealistic. As part of a small, independent film company out of Philadelphia I know that it takes a lot of hard work and man-hours. But I think that the technology is out there now in the reach of the regular Joe to do a lot of what Hollywood does.
Oh, well. This diatribe brought to by someone who doesn't even have enough time on his hands to play Half-Life 2 for a few hours at night. [:">] *sigh*
Wasn't Michael J. Fox slated for the role of Guybrush, like a long ass time ago? It might be fact or rumor, but I think he would have played a good part.
I am for a monkey island movie through and through, and maybe a grim fandango movie. But my opinion would be to release a movie on MI. You can't go wrong with MI. Of course there may be a lot of nagging from non believers of the monkey island francise (people claiming that MI is just a clone of POTC), but the word will get out that the movie was based on a computer game that was released in the early 90's.
The plot of MI has it all, the hopeless character Guybrush who comes through as a hero in a(n) ironic, sarcastic, and humorous way. The main character must prove himself. While proving himself worthy of the pirate tag, he is warned of an evil ghost pirate who roams the seas, falls hopelessly in love, and gathers skills and friends along the way (thievery, treasure, sword). We all know the rest of the story and we all love it.
Someone also mentioned that monkey island has the biggest fanbase of all Lucasarts adventure games, and its true. I think someone should get crackin on an MI movie. It would be a great way to experiment with movies that are based on video games. I also think this could be one of the first successful video-game-based movies. We have all seen the worst (mortal kombat, super mario bros, just to name a couple). To sum it all, the story has everything and more than POTC, people who liked POTC would probably like MI ten times more, it has more characters, more adventure, more comedy, hell its even got more drama! People might even think of it as a spoof of POTC (it might just work both ways! Video-game-based and major spoof of POTC).
Well, I think someone can certainly go wrong, but there's a remote possibility that an MI movie could work. You've got the piratey, voodoo-filled Caribbean world, and a good writer could create a passable story with Guybrush and company on an original adventure. As you pointed out, MI probably has the largest fan base of all the LucasArts adventures (though I'd say Sam & Max is the most marketable, I'd prefer any possible movie for those characters to be animated, and under the control of Purcell). I'm not sure that fan base is substantial enough to make the movie worth funding, but MI is something that could appeal to a mainstream audience if handled correctly, so I don't think the idea, at least theoretically, is all that prepostrous (though I still don't think in a million years it will happen).
And of course along with the negative side of the POTC situation which I've aleady discussed there's a positive aspect as well. After all, POTC was a huge success, and the numbers could mean that audiences are all for comedic pirate adventures that prominently feature the undead! I agree with you that people would be sold on MI once they got into it, but I'd be concerned about people being cynical about a possible movie simply by observing the marketing. It may just seems too similar for some people and could drive folks away. But yeah, the minute people read into the situation it wouldn't be a problem. The thing is not everyone would read into it.
Comments
Um, how about Earl Boen, the same guy who voiced him in CMI and EMI?
I like that show a lot, even though I'm nearly 29 years old. It delivers its content very well. The father reminds me of Daria's father, from the cartoon show.
The only bad actor is Malcolm himself. He stares into the camera all the time.
yeah I guess. Although I never really got used to that. The Lechuck I remember most was from MI and MI2 when he didn't have a voice. Lets say you couldn't get him, who would you tap?
It seems really neat. Too bad I'm not in the neighbourhood, then.
an interesting idea but in the words of pedro: "very no!"
I'm quoting myself, but I also wanted to add that Ben Stiller would make an awesome Largo LaGrande
I guess he meant the huge 250x200 pixel, not the 16kB...
Click here for info & concept art
Ghost Pirate Lechuck- Geoffrey Rush in a Pirate Suite
Clueless Guybrush Threepwood- Clueless Orlando Bloom
Elaine Marley, Govener of Melee island and Love Intrest- Kiera Knightly, Goveners daughter and love intrest
Uncoordinated and unsober Mick Jagger- Uncoordinated and unsober Johnny Depp,(yeah I know Micks not in the game, but why not have him in the movie)
Sure, the storys are far from identical, but how many of the non monkey island fans would buy it. Ahh well, I've still got my fingers crossed for Grim Fandango.
Oh, and I don't ever want to see a Grim movie made. Ever. That's a grave injustice. Really, I want to see none of the adventures adapted to feature films, but at least Monkey Island is remotely possible in terms of reworking the story.
You must be Amish. Nobody should talk about Dime like that.
On a side note, I do see a lot of MI in Pirates of the Carribean.
Yeah, into a piece of crap. Let's face it, the game is perfect as-is and making a film version (or any kind of adaptation for that matter) can bring no good. The story is full and complete, and it stands on its own as a masterpiece.
The reason I brought up Monkey Island is because you could make a whole new story in the same "world."
Think of the game as already like a movie, albeit interactive and with a lot more stuff going on. THERE'S NO POINT in making a half-assed attempt to bring it to theaters (not that I have to worry about such a thing ever being greenlighted thanks to the game's less-than-popular status). You can't compare something like Grim to a novel that can just be "adapted." And what's this about giving the game a wider audience? That time has passed. The game would have had a wider audience if it wasn't marketed by a bunch of jackasses. How is spending million of dollars on a feature more worthwhile than just advertising the game itself?
The very idea of a producer making a movie out of Grim is half-assed. Who are the "right hands" that could make this travesty brilliant? Besides nobody.
...what?
The problem is that a Grim-like story would never be greenlighted in the real world of Hollywood blockbusters, and the fans of the game would make up a large bulk of its intended audience anyway, so you'd beter believe there would be fan skeptics. The bottom line is to not even try. Grim does not call out to be put on another medium, and it can't benefit from it, either. It's not something to be interpreted on film. The game is what it is, and trying to adapt it is stupid, pointless, and harmful to the original work.
Grim tells a specific story in a specific world. There's no room to make it "an individual thing" without comprimising the original vision of the game. I would only feel comfortable with the project being headed by one man: Tim Schafer. And I'm pretty sure he's not stupid, so it won't happen.
Uh, yeah, making money is kind of the reason studios release movies. The thing is that Grim would be very expensive and has a non-mainstream storyline. Do you see this thing even breaking even in our current moviegoing society? Neither does the most idiotic hotshot producer. The idea wouldn't even get off the ground, much less funded with any sort of reasonable budget. And money "coming back in" is never a given, especially when you're dealing with something original and risky.
Grims Storyline could be greenlighted. Sure it's suggestive that there is a Mexican afterlife, but it sheads a little light on death, portraying it as a journey in it's own right. This makes it alot more non intimidating for younger audiances then other movies that touch up on the subject. Teenagers wouldn't be bothered by it and they are the generation that goes to the movies most oftern. Grim has a great plotline, it could defiantly go well, just saying that it wouldn't be a sucess doesn't prove that it can't draw in the crowds. Why wouldn't it be a sucess? I've said it before, it's not pointless. People can profit from this, Grim lives on long after the game dies, and it raises concepts that alot of people haven't considered, and what about entertainment, people want to be entertained, otherwise we wouldn't have movies at all.
The world Grim is set in is diverse enought. It doesn't even have to be exactly the same as in the game. It can be made individual as long as the director doesn't feel held back by the game, but more uses it as a guideline.
Of course I can see it breaking even, I can see it going way past that. I wouldn't be here argueing with you if I didn't. I don't know why you think there is no audiance for it. Just because the game didn't hit it big doesn't mean a movie can't. It was and adventure game, most gamers didn't look kindly to them when they had other genres they could play. The only reason gamers didn't like it was because they either hadn't tried adventure games or that they rather go with the run of the mill rpg three selves down. With movies it's a different game altogether. Firstly your not paying 30 bucks. Secondly choice is alot smaller with movies. Thirdly with a good advertising campaign cinema patrons wiil have a better idea of what there paying for. With the Grim adventure game people didn't know what they would be getting into because there was nothing to say to them, You'll like this if... when there in the middle of shopping.
There are no other people capable of making a good Grim movie, whether they'd be willing to kill for it or not.
Woah. I'm not talking about the story containing questionable content. I'm talking about the fact that major studios generally don't go for extremely expensive pictures with a wacky storyline. Tons of great ideas get killed before materialization because suits don't think they'll rack in the dough. Even in the video game industry Grim was a bit bizarre upon release (not that I think this makes it inaccessible for audiences. it's marketing departments that don't seem to care for it).
So all you're worried about is people getting rich and audiences being entertained? What about the integrity of the story? Explain to me how Grim would somehow make a movie that isn't a complete shame to the game?
See? It can't be done.
And this concern about "the game living on" with the film makes no sense whatsoever. The game will never die so long as there are people who remember and enjoy it. I'd rather Grim remain the cult masterpiece that it is and never gaining a wider audience if the only alternate is seeing it completely fucked up on the big screen in an effort to appease the generally popcorn moviegoing public. If your main concern is the game living on, then figure out a way to get the game itself more popular instead of desiring it ravaged.
Oh, and right on about your stance on entertainment. If only it pertained to anything you said.
I think this is where we disagree the most. The Grim world (the 8th underworld) is the setting for the game's very specific story. Are you suggesting we explore the creative possibilities that the world itself offers without any of the former characters? I suppose it could be done, but it would be sort of pointless and any original writer would come up with his own world. And if you're going to follow the Manny plot that the game does, you'd better follow damned closely (which of course can't be done without fucking it up, so everyone loses
You mention the director being original. The way I see it, Tim Schafer was the director of the video game. Games are more complicated (or can be I should say, as otherwise I may find myself in an argument I'd rather not be involved with) than novels or films in that they have interaction. To me making a film version of Grim is like remaking a movie except even worse because the game was originally so much more complete, and immerses the player into the world in a way that an adaptation never can.
If you are so sure this film would be extremely profitable, then you're a very optimistic person. I never said there wasn't an audience for this sort of entertainment, but I don't think it's big enough to make such a big budget movie turn a profit (assuming of course the impossible event of its being greenlighted in the first place).
For the record, the game sold poorly due to unbelievably bad marketing. I can't tell you the game would have broken sales records, but it didn't even get the chance. Perhaps adventures being a niche market and the game having a rather bizarre story shut out a significant amount of potential players, but honestly the game wasn't backed with the sort of marketing plan it should have been.
There are ways people can find out what a game is like that is similar to movie trailers. They're called demos.
And as for your last sentence. :-/
I'm not just worried about people making money and being entertained, that's why I said and I quote which has to do with what I said about the sprite of the game living on. I mean that what Grim Fandango sujests is remembered, by a lot more people.
I wasn't trying to say that they shouldn't follow the original plotline, just that it doesn't have to be a really tight bond.
Finally because I'm keeping it short, my last sentance was gramaticaly flawed. Heres what I meant to say; With the Grim adventure game people didn't know what they would be getting into because there was no advertising to tell the consumers to them" You'll like this if... " when there in the middle of shopping for a game.
That being said, the movie could end up crap or great or somewhere in-between. Who cares? Noone would be forcing you to see it, that's what I don't get about people moaning and complaining about big-budget adaptations of their favourite works. (re: lord of the rings, hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, dawn of the dead etc etc). Who cares? It isn't like the new work kills the old one, so that you can't go back and play/see the original. It just seems to me like "Boohooo, now everyone thinks this is <enter cult title here>. What about me, I was into it before everyone else. I felt special! Now I don't anymore. I'm just aaangrrrrrrrrryyyy. Grr."
People should use their energy on other things than getting wound up about their favorite franchise being "exploited", when in reality it's just you who feel exploited (for no reason whatsoever).
Meow.
Going slightly off-topic, just look at what Chris Roberts did to Wing Commander when adapting it as a movie. It plain sucked, because it didn't match up whatsoever to the story or characters we all knew, and it didn't have the big-name Hollywood stars that the games had. If they'd made it as a sequel of sorts to Prophecy, following a new crew in the same universe, I'd have been less disappointed, but taking all the elements of the game and completely changing them was a really bad idea.
If this is anything to go by, Tim Shafer and we fans should be happy never to see a Grim Fandango movie. As far as adventure game movie adaptations go, Pirates of the Caribbean is the closest we'll get, and as opposed to my initial misgivings about Disney basing a movie on a theme park ride, it turned out to be a very good movie! Of course, LucasArts based Monkey Island on that very same theme park ride, so in a sense it had been done successfully before.
And your point is? A film can very easily be horrible at the hands of a fan, you know.
The difference is Grim is not a literary work or anywhere near it. It's already a "movie" of sorts. And I'm not complaining (and fortunately won't have to since the damned project would thankfully never reach fruitition), but explaining why I think it would be a horrible idea in the first place. Just because you despise some fan reaction to the LOTR movies doesn't make a Grim movie a good idea, nor does it make arguments against it somehow invalid.
And your assertion that I somehow want Grim to remain a cult figure with a limited audiences is laughable. People don't like certain games because they feel like they're part of some special, secret group. They play games because they are good, and whether or not the game's popularity reflects that greatness in Grim's case is purely academic at this point. Believe it or not, some people like Grim because they think it's good, not just because it's an underdog or because they were "into it before everybody else." Some people actually want adventures to spread into mainstream.
Uhm, yeah. That's why they sit on a messageboard using alot of energy arguing why a movieadaptation of a certain game would be such a terrible idea. If the game was converted into a movie and it sucked, it would atleast, if nothing else, bring adventures into the mainstream, and probably make it valid to produce a follow-up game aswell.
But you missed my point, I was arguing against arguing against some work of art being produced. If I think something is going to suck, I just don't waste any energy on it, it's not like i have to see it. If other people want to see it, let them see it. I think some of you points are valid, it's just that I don't care. You make it out like it would be a very negative thing if such a movie would be produced. I don't think it would.
MEow
Which I'm happy with, the good thing is that they are making a number 2 and 3. Except in the next 2 Captain Jack Sparrows,(Johny Depp), father is in it. Rumour has it that Keith Richards has been cast for the part,
It's not to suprising seeing as Johny Depp was said to have based his character on Richards.
I want more Guybrush/Murray bantering! Those were some of the funniest scenes in MI3.
Any, let's be honest, if you get a team that's already good at CGI who can devote many hours, does anyone really *need* a major studio to back them up? Computer animation software, although expensive to individuals, is not out of the reach for a small production company, and even entry-level, video editing software now contains the ability to blue-screen.
I know, I'm being idealistic. As part of a small, independent film company out of Philadelphia I know that it takes a lot of hard work and man-hours. But I think that the technology is out there now in the reach of the regular Joe to do a lot of what Hollywood does.
Oh, well. This diatribe brought to by someone who doesn't even have enough time on his hands to play Half-Life 2 for a few hours at night. [:">] *sigh*
The plot of MI has it all, the hopeless character Guybrush who comes through as a hero in a(n) ironic, sarcastic, and humorous way. The main character must prove himself. While proving himself worthy of the pirate tag, he is warned of an evil ghost pirate who roams the seas, falls hopelessly in love, and gathers skills and friends along the way (thievery, treasure, sword). We all know the rest of the story and we all love it.
Someone also mentioned that monkey island has the biggest fanbase of all Lucasarts adventure games, and its true. I think someone should get crackin on an MI movie. It would be a great way to experiment with movies that are based on video games. I also think this could be one of the first successful video-game-based movies. We have all seen the worst (mortal kombat, super mario bros, just to name a couple). To sum it all, the story has everything and more than POTC, people who liked POTC would probably like MI ten times more, it has more characters, more adventure, more comedy, hell its even got more drama! People might even think of it as a spoof of POTC (it might just work both ways! Video-game-based and major spoof of POTC).
And of course along with the negative side of the POTC situation which I've aleady discussed there's a positive aspect as well. After all, POTC was a huge success, and the numbers could mean that audiences are all for comedic pirate adventures that prominently feature the undead! I agree with you that people would be sold on MI once they got into it, but I'd be concerned about people being cynical about a possible movie simply by observing the marketing. It may just seems too similar for some people and could drive folks away. But yeah, the minute people read into the situation it wouldn't be a problem. The thing is not everyone would read into it.