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.

This would not be a "game based on a movie" but, instead, a "movie based on a game". You know why there are 6 Resident Evil movies? Because they keep making money. They're schlocky, sure, but Hollywood gives not one single feth about that, so long as it makes double what it cost to produce.

TBH, I think they could do a variety of TV shows. You could have a "Tour of Duty" or "Band of Brothers" knock-off based on the IG. You could have a "Sopranos" knock-off based on Rogue Traders. You could have a "Star Trek" knock-off based on Magos Explorator fleets. You could have a "Hill Street Blues" knock-off based on the Arbites. You could have a "Kojak" knock-off based on the Ordo Hereticus of the Inquisition.

... of course, you would also need HBO-levels of money to make these.

 Rotary wrote:
Yeah, that what i thought. Then i wasted hours of my life watching ultramarines. What a waste.

Did you watch it in slow-mo? I don't think it even reaches the 90 minute mark.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

ComTrav wrote:
-Hollywood is in a mode now where it pilfers ideas from anywhere it can. Books, comics, video games...even the famous board game, Battleship.

It's actually the other way for a lot of things, including Battleship. Scripts come and go through producers, but the producers know jack about story telling usually and only about how to fill seats. So they slap on popular titles on to scripts to get extra seats. If I remember right, Battleship wasn't planned to be based on the board game, until a producer realized they could slap the title on and the internet would advertise for them. Usually goes with most movies that are terrible adaptations like I, Robot and Starship Troopers. Hell, if they did make a great script for 40K they'd probably just end up changing a few things and calling it "Halo" so it will fill more seats.

Uh, Starship Troopers was expressly, explicitly, purposefully adapted from the book. There was no "studio" causing problems with that film. The alterations in the film (from the book) were an effect of directorial decisions and budgetary concerns. Simply put, at the time, they didn't have the money to do Power Armor on the screen. The animation for the bugs took the bulk of the SFX budget.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Uh, Starship Troopers was expressly, explicitly, purposefully adapted from the book. There was no "studio" causing problems with that film. The alterations in the film (from the book) were an effect of directorial decisions and budgetary concerns. Simply put, at the time, they didn't have the money to do Power Armor on the screen. The animation for the bugs took the bulk of the SFX budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_%28film%29
The title was adapted from the book. The script was altered to include elements of the story into the movie to make it seem more like the book so it wouldn't look like just a title.

The director Paul Verhoeven never finished reading the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both "bored and depressed."

The setting, tone, and message between book change entirely. This is usually one of the major signs to look for that the adaptation was done as an after thought. The actual tone of the movie was more like mocking the tone of the book for being so militaristic and about following protocol.

That's my point. Verhoeven filmed the movie he wanted to film, based on the book, as he wanted to shoot it. It was not like he set out to make a faithful adaptation of the book and some studio-head came down and said "Hey, why don't you sexify this up by 10%?"

 VoidAngel wrote:
" It was not like he set out to make a faithful adaptation of the book and some studio-head came down and said "Hey, why don't you sexify this up by 10%?""

Nah, Denise Richards did that all by herself. Though it was more like 110%.

Her apparent allergy to clothing certainly did no harm to the film.

... and, yes, I think the Eisenhorn series would make the best translation to a live-action film. It's a film that demands Ridley Scott direct it.

 DarthMarko wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

Uh, Starship Troopers was expressly, explicitly, purposefully adapted from the book. There was no "studio" causing problems with that film. The alterations in the film (from the book) were an effect of directorial decisions and budgetary concerns. Simply put, at the time, they didn't have the money to do Power Armor on the screen. The animation for the bugs took the bulk of the SFX budget.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_%28film%29
The title was adapted from the book. The script was altered to include elements of the story into the movie to make it seem more like the book so it wouldn't look like just a title.

The director Paul Verhoeven never finished reading the novel, claiming he read through the first few chapters and became both "bored and depressed."

The setting, tone, and message between book change entirely. This is usually one of the major signs to look for that the adaptation was done as an after thought. The actual tone of the movie was more like mocking the tone of the book for being so militaristic and about following protocol.

That's my point. Verhoeven filmed the movie he wanted to film, based on the book, as he wanted to shoot it. It was not like he set out to make a faithful adaptation of the book and some studio-head came down and said "Hey, why don't you sexify this up by 10%?"

My imagination, but what do you think about Lynch? He made "Dune" and 40k is ripoff of that...

I know that movie was heavy critiqued, but I really enjoyed the setting....

Lynch would be better of directing something that involved hidden cultists, daemons, suspicion, double-crosses, weirdness and and far-out mental leaps.

Is a romance sub-plot really all that terrible a prospect? There's romance sub-plots in the Inquisitor series, Cain is a womanizer, and for kick-ass sci-fi movies with romance sub-plots? Well, Pitch Black did pretty good.