Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd be pretty confused if I saw a 40k movie. Also, anybody who's seen the recent Rambo movie will probably expect more action.

Wehrkind wrote:Honestly, I still think a 40k movie would be a great benefit towards them.
...
I just don't see how it could be bad, unless the movie is SO over the top bad that it burns the idea of a bad movie into people's minds when they hear "40k" instead of the game. Which is possible, but even if it was sort of ok, it would net positive results, I think.

Really?!? How could it be bad?!?!?

Does Dungeons and Dragons: The Movie ring a bell?

Movies don't pop out of studio ether. There are very few directors with the skill to create, populate, and illustrate a fantasy world. Even fewer with the ability to construct a coherent story in such a world and have it connect with any sort of material audience. I could count them on one hand.

See, I know movies. And I don't see a way that a 40K movie could be good, at least without a fairly visionary director at the helm, along with a very strong script that illuminates the universe and tells a good action-packed story alongside of it.

40K isn't a property like Lord of the Rings...it is a setting, not a story. The visual density created by the artistic leads would cost hundreds of millions to replicate, or it would look cheap and laughable. What studio wants that risk?

jfrazell wrote:Someone has to give me a business case for why the FAQ's are not updated, vs. the annoyance level this has with vet gamers.

Again, they are charging Mercedes prices, but not providing Mercedes service in this regard.

I can't see a business case.

The marginal cost of updating and publishing the FAQs must be negligible. What I mean by that is that the time spent doing them and the data served is not worth trying to account for.

Look at the process...

1. Grab FAQs off sites like Dakka or the Adepticon site.
2. Write answers to the questions, preferably by the actual designer involved or if not then by one of the designers.
3. Lay it out in the standard FAQ format and convert it into a PDF.
4. Stick it on the web site, with permission for users to copy and distribute for their own use.
5. Repeat with updates every 6 months until there are no more more FAQs.

How much work is involved, really? As much as a man week?

Finally someone sees it my way. My opinion is thatthe only way a 40k movie could possiblymake it's production cost back, was if it could entice new customers. But my argument all along has been that I don't feel that anyone that isn't already into 40k or who isn't very young and likes that kind of thing and because they are young they will have little money to buy 40k models with, would go to see a 40k movie. Thus GW would post more losses because of a movie that only fans and little kids saw with their parents.
Is anyone getting my opinion?

Are you talking about a movie that makes money in its own right (by selling a lot of tickets) or a movie that attracts new users to the game and sells a lot of books and models.

In my opinion it would not make money either way. Like you said earlier, there are not enough 40K fans and it would be too "genre" to attract a general audience.

That is exactly what I meant. The movie couldn't make money doing either alone so it would have to do both. And even then it wouldn't make any money for GW.

dienekes96 wrote:I don't see a way that a 40K movie could be good, at least without a fairly visionary director at the helm, along with a very strong script that illuminates the universe and tells a good action-packed story alongside of it.

40K isn't a property like Lord of the Rings...it is a setting, not a story. The visual density created by the artistic leads would cost hundreds of millions to replicate, or it would look cheap and laughable. What studio wants that risk?

Pfft. You would do a 40k movie like Casshern - motion-capture green screen with all of the details done via CG. That takes care of setting. Then, for story, you'd pick something compelling, like, say, Horus Heresy.

Yeah but that would be one long-ass movie. At least a trilogy if not longer.

At least it's a decent story. Besides, a lot of the movie can be shorthanded into flashbacks.

You almost need to include the emperor meeting all of his sons and that will take like 3 hours and flahbacks suck.

Well I think if you are gonna make a 40K movie it won't have to involve too much back story. If people are interested in just a basic action movie with just IG or Space Marines then I think a person would want to know more about the back story and all that if it's somehow made clear that there is such a thing. I mean if you just watch the first three Star Wars movies they talk about all kinds of conflicts and eras that they barely touch on throughout the whole trilogy. That would also leave ample room to do as Star Wars did and make prequels

-GWP

snorkle wrote:You almost need to include the emperor meeting all of his sons and that will take like 3 hours and flahbacks suck.

Flashbacks are a classic storytelling device. BAD flashbacks do certainly suck.

And bad flashbacks about a science fiction He-Man traveling the galaxy to find
out what happened to his "seed" would be tragic.

To make a successful movie about 40K it would need to have sequals to keep interest in it for years. The only problem is that once the movie stop the interest will go with it. Just like it did with the LOTR movies so I don't think the money invested would be made up through ticket purchases or merchandicing.

A movie even if it was made for cable would be cool but I think it would have to focus on a single soldier or a small group like Gaunts Ghost or the Last chancers taking on Chaos.

Because it would cool to see a baneblade or warhound unload all of its weapons at once. I think even non-40k people would be interested in seeing it.

The fact that most people say that it would be a copy of something will probably go see it. It has been shown that people go see movies that are similar. The new movie CLoverfeild is a cross between Blair Wich project meets Godzilla. So even though people say they hate remakes or copies of other movies the data shows most people will go see those movies.

Since the thread is hopelessly derailed anyway, I'll just chime in on the movie idea:

Dawn of War is a damn catchy title for a movie. It's also a video game a lot of people have heard of- definitely more than the amount that were interested in the 40k universe before the game. That makes for ticket sales. Add in the fact that it's a decent movie anyway and it'll be profitable for sure.

There 100% absolutely does NOT need to be a lot of backstory (like the Emperor creating the Primarchs). That's not important for one movie set in the 40k universe, and would make it completely unwatchable.

Tyranids vs. Space Marines would be far too unoriginal. Marines vs. Chaos and Necrons, maybe Tau or another race would be pretty interesting.

Any movie can be profitable, no matter how rigoddamndiculous the story. Ever heard of transformers? It takes marketing and names, but it can definitely be done.

One decent 40k movie with a trailer for DoW and a simultaneously release skirmish game equals huge influx of players.

Ever heard of Uwe Boll?

malfred wrote:Ever heard of Uwe Boll?

Not until I looked him up after this post, but all I have to say is

holy gak, Far Cry movie.

Back to the original topic:

Terminizzle wrote:1. Implemented some sort of "referee" system that qualified a small group of hand-picked players to put together FAQ's (reviewed by GW before publishing) on a regular basis in exchange for GW product. I think many, many players would jump at such an opportunity.

1) The simple reason is that it takes time and effort to put out a FAQ and GW doesn't feel that time and effort is worth it. I've said for a long time that they could use fan intermediaries to help collate quality FAQ questions for the writers to answer, but even then you still have to have someone on the design team willing to go back through the appropriate codices and really remember what all the implications of a FAQ's wording will mean to the game. Then they have to take the time and pay the money to have the FAQ translated and published simultaneously on all their websites.

It ain't rocked science, but again it isn't easy either. And I can safely say that GW doesn't like the concept of FAQs anyway. There are a whole group of players out there who don't like FAQs because they hate having to constantly be checking a website for the most updated version of the rules lest their opponent whip out a new FAQ printout to declare that they are now playing "wrong". I can safely say (having created an extensive FAQ) that it is rather easy to screw up a FAQ ruling making something worse off then what it was before. Rules are often so intertwined that you don't even realize that making one ruling will affect something else until you publish the FAQ and see the uproar.

It really is a tricky thing to do right and no matter how you slice it it takes time and effort to create something many players dislike in the first place.

2. Put out some sort of gateway non-video game to draw players in, like a relatively cheap Dawn of War skirmish game.

I know for a fact one of the things they'll be doing in the new rulebook is to remove the kill-team rules. The reason for this is simple: At some point and time there will be the opposite of Armageddon coming out, that being small scale rules for 40k. This is the new mantra of GW rules: The core rules are for basic tournament style 1,500 point games and everything else stacks on top in stand-alone supplements.

This skirmish supplement (whenever it arrives) will likely be exactly what you describe.

3. Lowered prices, because the prices their products are currently set at absolutely can't be the prices that maximize profit, can they?

I think their prices are set to maximize profits for the type of product they sell. I've said it before but I'll say it again:

The thing unique about miniatures is that it takes time to paint models to field an army and once you paint up that miniature you (for the most part) get to use it forever as long as you like the way it looks.

That means existing players don't really need to purchase new models if they don't want to once they have an army and there is also a natural barrier for people wanting to buy new armies: They will generally have to finish painting their stuff before they buy more stuff.

GW's prices are definitely ridiculously high, but they are set at a point that represents you are buying an object that you will be able to use over and over and over again essentially forever. They are also set at a point where you can buy one unit for $50(ish) and then spend a month or two painting it. Then you buy another unit for another $50 and rinse, repeat.

For most players, you simply aren't going to buy a whole army, paint it all in a couple weeks and then buy another whole army. There might be a select few people out there, but for the most part, no matter what the cost of the minis, most people simply won't do it. They take the time to paint (or try to paint) their army before moving onto another one (if they even do).

In fact, I'd wager that most people only ever get around to collecting one army, not necessarily because of price but because of the time and effort involved in assembling and painting the minis. I think the $$$ amount is set to maximize GW's profit off of those initial army purchases that people make.

4. Pieced together some sort of free magazine to expose their product.

GW sometimes puts out little hobby pamphlets, but I do think that WD is meant to be their catalogue disguised as a magazine. But printing and shipping (and paying people to put together the magazine) sure ain't free so why not charge for the magazine if you can? I still think that people interested in getting into the hobby will purchase a few issues of WD to check things out and that's essentially what it is for.

I think a free magazine would be great but would it really encourage people to buy more stuff? I'm not entirely sure that it would and that WD doesn't accomplish the same goal all while making some $ for the company because of its cover price.

Basically I think you'd have to prove that giving away WD would make the company more money in sales than what it currently makes from the cover price of the magazine. . .and I don't think that would turn out to be the truth.


But this is all just random speculation from me!

Black Gobbo has some great free content for an online
advertisement for the latest goods. Though ultimately
focused on "hobby" over "game", I really enjoy going
over the latest updates.

Polonius wrote:Based on internet complaining, nobody has bought GW product since (fill in time period here),

1989, AFAIKT.

yakface wrote:
1) The simple reason is that it takes time and effort to put out a FAQ

You sure it takes that much effort? A lot of posters think it can be done by a monkey in 15 minutes...

Oh, wait, you mean to do it *right*, meaning to check *ALL* of the rules that apply to the question, rather than just pulling something out of a random orifice...

This is the new mantra of GW rules: The core rules are for basic tournament style 1,500 point games and everything else stacks on top in stand-alone supplements.

This skirmish supplement (whenever it arrives) will likely be exactly what you describe.

If you take out the words "tournament style", and replace them with "streamlined", I'd totally agree. GW has to know that Tournaments are negligible compared to friendly games, which is why GW has set policy to not let the rules get in the way of having a friendly game.

The thing unique about miniatures is that it takes time to paint models to field an army and once you paint up that miniature you (for the most part) get to use it forever as long as you like the way it looks.

In fact, I'd wager that most people only ever get around to collecting one army, not necessarily because of price but because of the time and effort involved in assembling and painting the minis.

I'd generally agree. There are relatively few players who have multiple, playable, painted armies. Most stop their army at whatever the current tournament size is, and let that be the end of things.

It's probably worth polling, just for fun. Just make sure you force people to qualify their responses with "fully-painted" and "tournament-sized", because otherwise, the numbers are hugely inflated.

JohnHwangDD wrote:the numbers are hugely inflated.

As all numbers should be, Mr. DD.

JohnHwangDD wrote:It's probably worth polling, just for fun. Just make sure you force people to qualify their responses with "fully-painted" and "tournament-sized", because otherwise, the numbers are hugely inflated.

The only problem is: I wouldn't begin to know where to poll for these "most people". The players who post online are more than likely the veterans who collect multiple armies while the majority of the people (in my guestimation) that only have a single army or buy a single army (or part of an army) and then quit playing the game more than likely don't regularly visit an online gaming forum.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Pfft. You would do a 40k movie like Casshern - motion-capture green screen with all of the details done via CG. That takes care of setting. Then, for story, you'd pick something compelling, like, say, Horus Heresy.

Halo.

Game sold millions.

It's sequels sold more.

No studio would touch the movie script without first putting on protective gloves, and finally it took two studios working together to even entertain the idea of making it, and that was only after Peter Jackson of all people signed up as producer, towing his WETA workshops FX house with him.

Even then both movie studios pulled out.

This was Halo.

Now imagine a relativley unknown property like 40K. If Halo gets treated like a leper in Hollywood, how do you think 40K will be treated?


It'll never happen... or, if it does, the move will be made by Paul W.S. Anderson and suck, or it'll be made by Uwe Boll, and suck even more.

BYE

stonefox wrote:I'd be pretty confused if I saw a 40k movie. Also, anybody who's seen the recent Rambo movie will probably expect more action.

Someone SAW the recent Rambo movie?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

yakface wrote:
1) The simple reason is that it takes time and effort to put out a FAQ

You sure it takes that much effort? A lot of posters think it can be done by a monkey in 15 minutes...

Oh, wait, you mean to do it *right*, meaning to check *ALL* of the rules that apply to the question, rather than just pulling something out of a random orifice...

But its already been done. Take Yak's or Adepticon's FAQ. Give it a read through. Stick on website. Update it when Adepticon updates theirs (ie annually).

The major problem with GW is that they are past the point of no return.

The company has essentially designed itself to screw over its customer base at every chance it can by pelting us with constant updates and editions. Those are however the woes of a subscription hobby. It's an ever changing beast that will never reach perfection because it makes money staying in it's ever changing broken form.

Now the main reason people leave Warhammer is because of GWs conduct and attitude it has towards its paying customers, it eventually wears you down. Out of all the subscription hobby companies (Magic, DnD, WoD) GW is by far the worst. They are ignorant (willingly or not) to their own actions.

The only way GW will pull itself out of the nose dive it's taking is start treating it's customers with respect and start polishing the company image i.e. do things that make you look like you actually care rather then doing things that look like you are just trying to steal our wallets in the night (see the new "bitz" program).

However this will force GW to lose even MORE money and might not even work for them in the long run. I believe that they full out know this and that they know they risk killing themselves even more if they decide to treat us with respect, so they are deciding to stick with the screw job approach because its "guaranteed" money with no risk.

I guess they figure that if they are going down in flames they would much rather get all they can and look like fools rather then doing the right thing and hope for the best with a chance of survival or die decently.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

yakface wrote:
1) The simple reason is that it takes time and effort to put out a FAQ

You sure it takes that much effort? A lot of posters think it can be done by a monkey in 15 minutes...

Oh, wait, you mean to do it *right*, meaning to check *ALL* of the rules that apply to the question, rather than just pulling something out of a random orifice...

Well here's the thing, most of the rule debates have 2 solutions in most of the cases. You just choose the one that is best to the spirit of the game.

For example Ghazkuls +2 attacks on the charge being negated by him being slow and purposeful. Do you really need to look into that? No. How about the nob with a powerklaw in a shoota boyz unit? Again, it's not game breaking. Most of the problems need only 1 sentence and very little effort to fix. Only in rare cases do you need to look at the base mechanics to explain something extremely unclear (lash of submission).

A proper FAQ can be done in a single 8 hour shift (or less) if they got all the developers together. 1 day is not too much to ask, hell they could even release a FAQ right after the book comes out to smooth out anything.

Really though you just have to ask yourself sometimes; How they hell did they miss some of this stuff before sending it off to their printers? Are they so ignorant to their own rules that they dont know them?

dietrich wrote:I have a plot for a 40k movie.

Marines vs. Tyranids. I mean, really, does it need to be more? If it looks cool on the screen, I'd pay to go see marines blaze away with bolters and flamers. Maybe the stand of the Ultramarine First Company on Macragge? Who cares. Probably 99% of the users on this board like the movie Aliens, and a well-done 40k movie could be bigger, shinier, noisier, and more bloody. Who cares if the plot is paper thin, we just want to see carapaces blown apart and some good one-liners!

Uwe Boll fan?

Pariah Press wrote:

Polonius wrote:Based on internet complaining, nobody has bought GW product since (fill in time period here),

1989, AFAIKT.

Great find. Your google fu is very strong.


Seriously, I think the moral effect of watching GW raise prices far outweighs the economic effect of paying them. What I mean to say is, we're not mad that the stuff is more expensive, but that GW made it more expensive. In a way, it's a little childish, but I think part of that stems from GW treating us so condescendingly.

I stand by my theory that less then 10% of gamers simply cannot afford the price hikes. I pick 10% arbitrarily, but there have to be achingly few hobbyists sitting in basements, with every mini they own fully assembled, converted, painted, based, flocked, and sealed, wishing they had more money so they could buy more minis. Instead, I know plenty of guys like myself, who owns 3000pts of OOP chaos stuff that I though looked cool, or my buddy; who doesn't play WFB but somehow has 4k in DOW stuff,after an eBay liquidation....

Polonius wrote:

Pariah Press wrote:

Polonius wrote:Based on internet complaining, nobody has bought GW product since (fill in time period here),

1989, AFAIKT.

Great find. Your google fu is very strong.


Seriously, I think the moral effect of watching GW raise prices far outweighs the economic effect of paying them. What I mean to say is, we're not mad that the stuff is more expensive, but that GW made it more expensive. In a way, it's a little childish, but I think part of that stems from GW treating us so condescendingly.

I stand by my theory that less then 10% of gamers simply cannot afford the price hikes. I pick 10% arbitrarily, but there have to be achingly few hobbyists sitting in basements, with every mini they own fully assembled, converted, painted, based, flocked, and sealed, wishing they had more money so they could buy more minis. Instead, I know plenty of guys like myself, who owns 3000pts of OOP chaos stuff that I though looked cool, or my buddy; who doesn't play WFB but somehow has 4k in DOW stuff,after an eBay liquidation....

Don't you think the group that is much more important to consider here is the group of "players" that never actually started to play because of the prohibitively high costs gw unreasonably imposes?

When I say lower prices would almost certainly increase profit, this group is the reason for that.

morfangdakka wrote:A movie even if it was made for cable would be cool but I think it would have to focus on a single soldier or a small group like Gaunts Ghost or the Last chancers taking on Chaos.

The fact that most people say that it would be a copy of something will probably go see it.

Why not an Eisenhorn movie? Sell it as another Blade Runner. It'd be a lot more accessible than the big-scale stuff.