ZELDA MOVIE IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

[JonathanSpenc]

and the tower of the gods...why is that such a big deal??

Oh right, now I remember that, I remember think "OH SHIT LINK TALKED!" And it is a big deal that a silent character SAYS real words.

[Link Reborn]

either way, making a zelda movie is basically suicide for Nintendo.

[Count von EA]

No. Stopping production of the DS and reviving the Virtual Boy would be suicide. A Zelda movie would just be a rather dumb.

And someone really needs to sort out that "no spoken dialogue" line on Wikipedia...

[Link Reborn]

Zelda = game Franchise, therefore should remain a game franchise.

[Negoogunogumbar]

Zelda = game Franchise, therefore should remain a game franchise.

Yeah, Oil! was a book, so There Will be Blood is a crap movie and should never have been made. Same thing with 2001: A Space Odyssey. And even though a Zelda movie won't even be worthy of the aforementioned films' jock-straps, it can still be a fun and enjoyable movie. The Bourne movies are great and they don't even follow the plot of the books closely.

[JonathanSpenc]

ZELDA MOVIE IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE!

Legend of Link a fan film (you can see it on youtube) it was at least 90 mins and it was great, if college students can make a great independent Zelda movie, then why shouldn't Nintendo be able to make a great actual film!

[Link Reborn]

ZELDA MOVIE IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE!

Legend of Link a fan film (you can see it on youtube) it was at least 90 mins and it was great, if college students can make a great independent Zelda movie, then why shouldn't Nintendo be able to make a great actual film!

Hm... Let see.

• Nintendo would be taking a major risk of putting the hard-earned Zelda name on the frontal lines.

• Nintendo has better things to do with their budget, such as make a new zelda GAME- Not Movie
• If unsuccessful, Zelda and Nintendo Of America would encounter future problems.

• It would be hard making a zelda movie with a silent protagonist who rarely, if at all speaks dialogue.

• Zelda = Game, and therefore should remain a Game.

I rest my case.

[JonathanSpenc]

All below quotes are from XLink RebornX

Nintendo would be taking a major risk of putting the hard-earned Zelda name on the frontal lines.

Alright I give you that. Last time Nintendo took a risk they screwed up. (ie CD-i games)

* Nintendo has better things to do with their budget, such as make a new zelda GAME- Not Movie

Well I can't counter that one.

If unsuccessful, Zelda and Nintendo Of America would encounter future problems.

What problems would those be? Also if they were successful, Zelda and Nintendo of America would receive even more popularity then they already do have. Also how about the main Nintendo (Japan) makes the movie!? And America just gets a subbed copy?

Zelda = Game, and therefore should remain a Game.

Actually Zelda = Franchise(they've made action figures, mangas, shirts, and item replica's too). I think an Animated Movie would probably be the best bet to go with, however I would give them more credit for making it Live Action and making it well.

[Link Reborn]

All below quotes are from XLink RebornX

Nintendo would be taking a major risk of putting the hard-earned Zelda name on the frontal lines.

Alright I give you that. Last time Nintendo took a risk they screwed up. (ie CD-i games)

* Nintendo has better things to do with their budget, such as make a new zelda GAME- Not Movie

Well I can't counter that one.

If unsuccessful, Zelda and Nintendo Of America would encounter future problems.

What problems would those be? Also if they were successful, Zelda and Nintendo of America would receive even more popularity then they already do have. Also how about the main Nintendo (Japan) makes the movie!? And America just gets a subbed copy?

Zelda = Game, and therefore should remain a Game.

Actually Zelda = Franchise(they've made action figures, mangas, shirts, and item replica's too). I think an Animated Movie would probably be the best bet to go with, however I would give them more credit for making it Live Action and making it well.

Hm, if successful, i guess that it would be worthwhile, but i wouldn't take the risk knowing that nintendo is already known worldwide. as if they need anymore popularity, although i do see what your saying.


and for your last counter, Touche xD

[JonathanSpenc]

Hm, if successful, i guess that it would be worthwhile, but i wouldn't take the risk knowing that nintendo is already known worldwide. as if they need anymore popularity, although i do see what your saying.

and for your last counter, Touche xD

Well yeah but still, there's no such thing as too much popularity.

Which part?

Zelda = Franchise

or

I think an Animated Movie would probably be the best bet to go with, however I would give them more credit for making it Live Action and making it well.

[Link Reborn]

the zelda = franchise part.

[JonathanSpenc]

lol thx! 

[Power_Courage]

Did anybody catch that IGN April Fools joke?  It was a "trailer" for an LoZ movie.  "The Legend of Zelda: Hero of Time."  Link did not speak in any of the little parts, but it was just a trailer.  Easy to keep him from talking.  Everyone is right who says that the main character doesn't have to talk for the film to be good (The Busboy [old Jerry Lewis film.  He doesn't talk at all until the end.]), but it does require some excellent direction.

[mikecamper]

Zelda = game Franchise, therefore should remain a game franchise.

Yeah, Oil! was a book, so There Will be Blood is a crap movie and should never have been made. Same thing with 2001: A Space Odyssey. And even though a Zelda movie won't even be worthy of the aforementioned films' jock-straps, it can still be a fun and enjoyable movie. The Bourne movies are great and they don't even follow the plot of the books closely.

"2001" and "There Will Be Blood" are crap movies but the "Bourne" movies are great and a Zelda movie would be good?    I know this is not a film discussion forum,  but all I gotta say is,  I pity the person who gets stuck going to the movies with you

[Negoogunogumbar]

"2001" and "There Will Be Blood" are crap movies but the "Bourne" movies are great and a Zelda movie would be good?    I know this is not a film discussion forum,  but all I gotta say is,  I pity the person who gets stuck going to the movies with you

Sarcasm is a pretty useful thing to understand.

[mikecamper]

"2001" and "There Will Be Blood" are crap movies but the "Bourne" movies are great and a Zelda movie would be good?    I know this is not a film discussion forum,  but all I gotta say is,  I pity the person who gets stuck going to the movies with you

Sarcasm is a pretty useful thing to understand.

My bad dude, now that I re-read it I can see the sarcasm.  Sorry, man.

Even still,   literary adaptations into film are much more commonplace and quite frankly, have a way better track record than game-to-movie adaptations have.  Surely you can admit at least that much.

Plus the fact that the subject matter of, for instance,  "There Will Be Blood" is relevant even today, especially in a George Bush world, even though it takes place at the turn of the century.   The thing about adapting Zelda into a movie... is that nobody's gonna give a flying f*** except the fans of the game.   And I'll wager big that most of even the fans will not be happy with the result. 

The Zelda games got the following they did because they revolutionized gameplay, not because of their stories.   How likely is it that a Zelda movie is gonna revolutionize  moviemaking?

Anyway, they'd probably just make it CGI out the ass, which is a bad thing in my humble opinion.

[Negoogunogumbar]

Even still,   literary adaptations into film are much more commonplace and quite frankly, have a way better track record than game-to-movie adaptations have.  Surely you can admit at least that much.

Yes, but literature has been around for thousands of years. Video games have had plots for about a decade and a half.

Plus the fact that the subject matter of, for instance,  "There Will Be Blood" is relevant even today, especially in a George Bush world, even though it takes place at the turn of the century.   The thing about adapting Zelda into a movie... is that nobody's gonna give a flying f*** except the fans of the game.   And I'll wager big that most of even the fans will not be happy with the result.

True, but movies don't really have to be relevant to what's going on today. They can pure escapist fantasy, like Indiana Jones, and that's okay. And people would see the film even if they haven't heard of the video game series. I've talked to people that weren't aware that Silent Hill was a video game and they had seen the movie. If the movie looks cool people will see it.

The Zelda games got the following they did because they revolutionized gameplay, not because of their stories.   How likely is it that a Zelda movie is gonna revolutionize  moviemaking?

A Zelda movie doesn't have to revolutionize cinema and it won't.

[mikecamper]

Even still,   literary adaptations into film are much more commonplace and quite frankly, have a way better track record than game-to-movie adaptations have.  Surely you can admit at least that much.

Yes, but literature has been around for thousands of years. Video games have had plots for about a decade and a half.

Plus the fact that the subject matter of, for instance,  "There Will Be Blood" is relevant even today, especially in a George Bush world, even though it takes place at the turn of the century.   The thing about adapting Zelda into a movie... is that nobody's gonna give a flying f*** except the fans of the game.   And I'll wager big that most of even the fans will not be happy with the result.

True, but movies don't really have to be relevant to what's going on today. They can pure escapist fantasy, like Indiana Jones, and that's okay. And people would see the film even if they haven't heard of the video game series. I've talked to people that weren't aware that Silent Hill was a video game and they had seen the movie. If the movie looks cool people will see it.

The Zelda games got the following they did because they revolutionized gameplay, not because of their stories.   How likely is it that a Zelda movie is gonna revolutionize  moviemaking?

A Zelda movie doesn't have to revolutionize cinema and it won't.

Once again, you've rebutted me well.  But on the last point about revolutionizing cinema,  all I really meant is that I suspect that the "saga" of Zelda (the story, if you will) will not appeal to or capture the affection of any moviegoers who don't play the games.  Therefore, unless they can make a Zelda movie that can be another "Star Wars" or "Titanic,"  the endeavor should not even be undertaken at all.   

I don't know...  maybe I'm all wrong about this.  Audiences are not always predictable.

[Caseman]

A Zelda movie is possible, however unlikely.  Nintendo has already sworn off of movie making after that unfortunate "Super Mario Brothers" movie incident, so that pretty much crushes what little chance is left.

But if we were to ignore this unfortunate detail, I would say the concept of a Zelda movie is plausible.  The whole Link doesn't talk (much) isn't that big of a deal, because they could film a (mostly) silent protagonist. 

I don't know if anyone here has ever played Half-Life 2, but that game really feels like a sci-fi movie and doesn't have the main protagonist, Gordon Freeman, talk at all.  The way they get away with this is by focusing a lot of dialog on Alyx Vance, Gordon's unofficial sidekick.  So for a Zelda movie, the film could focus on Navi, or Midna, Sheik/Zelda, or whomever for character development.

Next issue is Live Action vs. CGI.  Let’s face it; all Live Action video game based movies have been terrible.  On top of that, I don't even want to imagine how the director could cast Link, Zelda, or Ganondorf.  Basically it would be impossible to please everyone so I think Live Action may not be the wisest choice.

I know CGI animation is a "big no no" for a lot of people, but just give it a chance for a moment.  Link, Zelda, and Ganon would look the way they are supposed to, so there are no casting issues.  Also there have been a lot of great looking CGI films recently to compare to.  I know TMNT wasn't rated well due to its childish story, but the animation and the combat in the movie was spectacular.  I am not even remotely a Final Fantasy fan, believe me, but the recent Final Fantasy 7: Advent Child DVD was an accomplishment nonetheless.  Granted, it was impossible to understand, and it was pretty much a fan boy service, but it reasons that a well aged turn-based RPG can translate into a full blown epic movie rather nicely.  So why can't Zelda do the same?

Yes this type of project would require a lot of funding and a lot of care, but if Nintendo is serious about the movie business this time, then I am more than willing to give them the chance.  However, if the movie flops again like Super Mario, it would be nearly impossible for Nintendo or Zelda to recover.  So no pressure here Nintendo, but if you want to take the risk, then make sure you put forth all your effort this time.

[Be_yourself]

I don't know if anyone here has ever played Half-Life 2, but that game really feels like a sci-fi movie and doesn't have the main protagonist, Gordon Freeman, talk at all.  The way they get away with this is by focusing a lot of dialog on Alyx Vance, Gordon's unofficial sidekick.  So for a Zelda movie, the film could focus on Navi, or Midna, Sheik/Zelda, or whomever for character development.

Zelda however has never seemed like a movie, it doesn't have many cinematic qualities most of the game is done outside the cutscenes, with the exception of TP.