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.

The thing with Boll is yes his movies suck, but his reasoning behind the movies is interesting, though I am using the term rather loosely. To him games are a bit like books in the way that everybody experiences them differently, so it is better to do something different than to try and copy the source, as that would always result in people decrying it as a poor rendering of the source material.

do no its a good movie seen its its very intertaining.
wasent the most legal way but seen im on the net

Necros wrote:You can't ever expect a movie to be true to the source. The closest a movie ever came was lord of the rings. Everything else is dumbed down by hollywood and ruined. Think of it more as a low budget sci fi flick and you'll like it more

the lord of the rings trilogy, while incredable films, cut out massive swathes of the books

There is a significant difference between cutting out parts of a book for various reasons and taking a title, character names, completely changing the universe that story takes place in and how the characters interact and pawning it off to the masses.

Please don't misunderstand. I my initial critical review wasnt intended more for people who have had no experience with Warzone or the pen and paper RPG. For these people may have easily assumed due to lack of clarification that the Mutant Chronicles universe was something so terribly B-grade. Not that there is anything wrong with B-grade, but give credit where credit is due. Mutant Chronicles was a fun background full of interesting characters and plot... not the most original perhaps but it was a fun spin on an old story. The Movie in no way reflected its origins and regardless of the fact that knock off movies being made from decent stories has become common place in no way obligates me to find it acceptable or cool. Make the movie..... just give it another name and dont $h!T on someone elses work.

I know nothing of mutant chronicles but i really enjoyed the movie... it was probably 90% bluescreen but still...

As others have said it is... Not. Very. Good.

I also loved Mutant Chronicles in its various forms and this is pretty much a generic soldiers vs zombies film with few ties to the MC source material.

It does not use the neat armor or weapon designs from MC. It does not use the neat mutant and monster designs from MC. It mentions the corporations in passing but really they have no effect on the story.

I mean geeze, why pay for rights to MC if you're not going to use the neat visuals from it?

It seems to have some neat retro steampunk tanks and fliers in it but the photography never gives a good look.

Oh well.

I did learn one thing though. I learned how come Devon Aoki never spoke in Sin City and spoke with an outrageous French accent in DEBS. Because even with her exotic looks and name, she sounds like any old California mall girl. And she can't act.

I think thats the prob here.
If you happen to know the original MC source material, you wont like the movie.

I didnt know any of it and I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. Maybe a tad too much cgi but other than that, i thought it was awesome.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Necros wrote:You can't ever expect a movie to be true to the source. The closest a movie ever came was lord of the rings. Everything else is dumbed down by hollywood and ruined. Think of it more as a low budget sci fi flick and you'll like it more

the lord of the rings trilogy, while incredable films, cut out massive swathes of the books

I think my favorite thing ever said about the Lord of the Rings movies was "The movies are good, but would be much better if they weren't called Lord of the Rings."

To give a hint of what she meant by this, this was said after an hour long discussion on how much Faramir was changed from the books.

I saw the european version and it was rubbish.

tbh I think it is despicable that they would release half a movie on us and save the whole movie for the USA.

The best summary of this phenomenon I've heard was an old and sexist Italian saying-

A woman can be beautiful, or faithful, but never both.

While I don't agree in applying this to women, it does work well with translations and adaptations from literature. One of my college professors introduced it as a great summary of literary translations and adaptations. The more accurate ones often end up being terrible while those that alter the style of the original can sometimes be wonderful. Stardust stands out as a movie that wasn't accurate to the source, but ended up being very entertaining and well done.

dunno if this counts as threadromancy but I just noticed the trailer is now featured on Apple's trailer site and you can watch it in crisp clear HD

http://www.apple.com/trailers/magnolia/mutantchronicles/

Apparently it'll be in theaters on April 24.

Na i think its safe ... odd though i have a copy of the DVD ... wonder if its real or not ...

Chances are that it is. It has been released nearly everywhere else for almost 6 months now.

Platuan4th wrote:

I think my favorite thing ever said about the Lord of the Rings movies was "The movies are good, but would be much better if they weren't called Lord of the Rings."

To give a hint of what she meant by this, this was said after an hour long discussion on how much Faramir was changed from the books.

No offense, but I've read the LotR books a few times as well, and I still think what your friend said was pretty silly.

For the sake of fitting in 3 massive novels into 12 hours, some things were changed/modified. But the overall premise of the books is there. A lot of the detail is there. But even insinuating that a movie that doesn't follow the books 100% should 'change it's name' is pretty silly, in my book. The "spirit" of LotR came through in the movies as close to flawless as I could imagine (and even better in some parts), despite what 'purists' might say. To a casual reader and movie-goer like myself, that's more than sufficient, and the idea that PJ should have 'changed the name' of the movies is simply laughable.

Just my 2 coppers, though, as I've had similar debates with several 'purist' friends of my own over the movie vs. books. In the end, I can't stop laughing at some of the arguments such people use. One of my more high-strung friends loved the movies - but really did want to find PJ and physically abuse him.

As for the MC movie - I thought I saw something on IMDB that said Sci-Fi acquired the rights to air it... though a date was not listed. I didn't have time to check into it any further, but that would be pretty funny if it hit the airwaves before or soon after it hit the silver-screens stateside.

The more I read about it, the more I agree with Kid Kyoto's summary: they could have changed a few things, and not even worried about the MC IP. Which is sad, because there is a TON of cool MC stuff that could make a great movie.

Just my 2 coppers, tho.

I'll take the LOTR movies over those boring, sleep-inducing books any day.

The LOTR movies were the most commercially pleasing way to adapt that book (it's just 1! JRRT hated it when people called it a trilogy) while remaining true to the spirit (if not the letter) of the original text.

I absolutely have to agree with the sentiments being most recently expressed. I LoTR trilogy (I could care less what JRRT hated about calling it that) was both an amazing story and a great movie adaptation. I would say what has already been said in defense of that statement but it would be put far less eloquently than has previously been stated.

Mutant Chronicles though a very straight forward universe was interesting and had much potential. It was butchered for seemingly no reason much like the Starship Troopers rendition of the Classic novel. It saddens me to see something trampled upon when clearly the original text would have been sufficient if not easily superior.

The problem is execs read the novel and see all the deep and profound political ranting, decide that it is too heavy for the audience so instead you get a cheesy action movie.

... I think what every one get mixed up on is Lord of the Rings is infact 9 books ... you can get as one single lump or as in three lumps (and i think as individual books but i've not seen that published) ... but my point is if you're going to make 9 books into 3 films somethings going to get left out

Oh ya well I heard that good old J.R.R prefered to refer to his work by numbers of chapters.... once while he and I were out for a pint and after we had had a couple too many he even told me in confidence he hated it when people refered to his works as books at all and not just "the work of pages 1 through 3024."

Seriously people get over your acute knowledge of a fantasy work. Its one thing to debate the merits of a book vs. the movie. It is entirely another thing to have a proverbial nerd pissing contest over your depth of knowledge on the book alone.

ha my only point was if they wanted to keep every thing in it would have taken at least 9 movies of at least an hour and a half for Lord of the Rings so they didn't miss out any of the books (which JRR called them ... or let them be called)