You chose, the zelda movie, it rests in your hands!

This sounds great when will it come out and release it on DVD

It's a good thing the TC didn't say the whole trilogy. Then that would have to be like a 6 hour movie (unless they skip through a lot....)

\w/ LTR \w/

nah i don't like it

It's almost impossible to do a LoZ film. It's just not gonna work. You can try, but it's bloody hard. I mean, If logic serves, you would start with OoT, and then there are loads of problems there.

It's just...too hard to do on a low budget. It's something to let Hollywood do.

Originally Posted by Tzao Occultus

It's just...too hard to do on a low budget. It's something to let Hollywood do.

It is most definitely not something to let Hollywood do. You'd be surprised what kind of graphics you can get with a low budget. I know that it was only a trailer and they moved quickly between scenes, but that IGN trailer was mostly CG and it didn't look too shabby, and I highly doubt that IGN would be willing to pay big bucks for an April Fool's Joke. Even if they were, it proves that something as trivial as a game informer company can get funds together for something like that, so I'm sure that an independent film maker could. Plus, just take a look at some of the other things that directors can do with a low budget.

Did you ever watch the show Firefly? Well, they managed to do move quality special effects with a budget of around 1.5 million dollars a show. So, 45 minutes of a Zelda movie would probably cost around 3 million (as there would be more special effects than in the show), so probably around 10 million for a full length film and that's not as hard to come up with as it sounds like. With something as popular as Zelda, producers would be willing to lay down big bucks. Heck, Quentin Tarantino managed to get close to a million dollars (900,000 to be exact) for his first film Reservoir Dogs, when no had ever heard of him and his idea for a movie was completely new.

Getting ten times that amount with a director that's a little more known (but still independent) and with something as big as Zelda would not be that hard. In all honesty, producers would probably we willing to put more than that on the line, especially if you got a couple of execs from Hollywood to fund it too, but then they would have a say in the film and that's the last thing we want. I'm sure everyone has seen the sh** Hollywood gives us these days that they try to pass off as cinema. Hah! If Hollywood ever did a Zelda film I would probably cry, go see it anyways, and then cry afterwards because they had bastardized it so much.

Yeah i dont think hollywood should do this. I have seen a film they had doen based off of a true story and it was totally different..

Originally Posted by Picori_the_Mini

Yeah i dont think hollywood should do this. I have seen a film they had doen based off of a true story and it was totally different..

What part of based on don't you understand? Chronicals of Narnia was awesome, James Bond rocks, and let's not forget Star Wars. All these movies were based on their book-form counterparts. I haven't read any of the star wars or james bond books, but I read the Chronicals of Narnia:The Lion, the Which, and the Wardrobe and it was about the same not exact, but close enough. The really creepy thing was is I had this dark voice for the wolf leader, and when I saw the movie two years later I noticed it sounded exactly the same as the voice in my head.

I bet if they did things to a T, using CGI and a truckload of effects it might turn out decent. Just like every other book-based movie. Then again it might tank too...but it'd still be kinda cool to find out what good ol hollywood could come up with.

i think zelda should just be a game, i'd rather play through the story and feel like im a part of it rather than watch some hollywood movie that i can garantee will suck. No matter how great zelda is hollywood will try to find some way to make it appeal to everyone and they will ruin it. They did it to Eragon (based off the epic book, and they took a hacksaw to the plot and turned into a peice of ****), and they did it to countless other movies. The only reason way it would ever become a good movie was if peter jackson did it, he made King Kong and LOTR awardwinning movies, while the other iteriations of the movies made before peter's era were horrible (especially the LOTR cartoon).

Keep zelda a timeless videogame classic, and not a way for hollywood to milk money out of nintendo's bosom.

I'm live in North Carolina and I think it looks like a really good place to film an LoZ movie. Most all movies not filmed in Hollywood r filmed in NC. The types of terrain in NC are very diverse(There's mountains, forests, foothills, plains, some swamps, beaches, lakes, etc...) so that would suit a place as diverse as Hyrule. For the desert scenes I would recommend the Mojave Desert or the Sahara.

I was born in Louisiana and that place would be good for filming a swamp scene like the one from MM.

Originally Posted by zfan121

What part of based on don't you understand? Chronicals of Narnia was awesome, James Bond rocks, and let's not forget Star Wars.

Okay, there have only been three Narnia movies: a BBC version of Lion, Witch, Wardrobe, and the two new ones. And personally, I prefer the BBC Lion, Witch, Wardrobe to the new one, so Hollywood did, in my opinion screw that one up. I haven't seen Prince Caspian so I won't judge. Most of the James Bond movies are only very loosely based on their book counterparts. In fact Moonraker was so radically different, that when they produced the book of the movie, they had to call it "James Bond and Moonraker" so people wouldn't get it confused with the real Moonraker.

Though Bond is still entertaining, it's hardly true to its source material. Though Casino Royale was admittedly pretty close, so I'm hoping that studios will start amending that mistake. And as for Star Wars, it was a movie script long before it was a book series. Have you just never heard of movie books? Most movies have one. They'll come out with the book before the movie, even though the book is based on the movie. Hell, even PotC had movie books. So, again, Star Wars is not a good example.

All these movies were based on their book-form counterparts. I haven't read any of the star wars or james bond books, but I read the Chronicals of Narnia:The Lion, the Which, and the Wardrobe and it was about the same not exact, but close enough.

See above.

I bet if they did things to a T

I hate to be nitpicky, but this really bothers me. It's not just the letter "t". It's a word: tee. Please use it.

using CGI and a truckload of effects it might turn out decent.

This is exactly what we don't need. The last thing Zelda needs is to be turned into an eye candy fest of CG and special effects to capture the fantasy action without any regards to plot. In my opinion, the best films are the ones that use CGI sparingly, only when they have to. And it's best kept for things that humans have never seen. Let me give you an example. A very good use of CGI was the Whomping Willow in Harry Potter: Chamber of Secrets. Humans have no idea what a moving tree would look like, so CG is very convincing in that case.

Here's a bad example. In Harry Potter: Prisoner of Azkaban, they made the freaking dog CG! What?! Like none of the audience has never seen a dog and wouldn't know immediately that it was a fake. Ridiculous. Anyways, point is, CGI and special effects is not what makes a movie decent. Plot and character development, good dialog, good acting. Those are what makes films good. Try this. Go see a play on the stage. I can pretty much guarantee you that it will be better than a film, because without any sets, CGI, or multiple takes, the actors in a play have to actually rely on a good script and raw acting talent. That is what makes a good movie.

Just like every other book-based movie.

Most book based movies are not decent. Most of them suck.

Then again it might tank too...but it'd still be kinda cool to find out what good ol hollywood could come up with.

Good and Hollywood should never be used in the same sentence, unless that sentence also contains either the word "not" or "1970s".

WTH? It's all a matter of opinion dude. And I meant like CGI from TMNT, that was a lot more satisfying than the first three which were done in cheap live-action turtle suits. The overall movies were good and entertaining for their time, but the effects were kinda cheap.

And I never said they should ignore the "important" parts of the story, I simply said they could do it in CGI if they had to make a choice on what SYLE of movie to do it in! If they did do it of course I'd want them to pay attention to all or most of the "details" from the game, rather than slap the Zelda names on some live action actors like the fake Zelda movie trailer implies. Even I would find that rather unpleasent to watch. Sorry for talking so much, I'll try not to do it as often at least like in this post. XD As long as they don't do a freaking Kirby movie, that'd be really dumb! Not that I don't like the game, it's....ok I guess.

Originally Posted by zfan121

WTH? It's all a matter of opinion dude.

Well, your feelings about Narnia are opinion, and... you might be able to get away with saying that Hollywood making cheap, horrible films is opinion, but the rest of what I posted pretty much wasn't. James Bond and Star Wars were not opinion, they were fact. Star Wars books were based off the movies, rather than the other way around, and James Bond movies don't draw from their source material that much. Those are indisputable facts.

And I meant like CGI from TMNT, that was a lot more satisfying than the first three which were done in cheap live-action turtle suits. The overall movies were good and entertaining for their time, but the effects were kinda cheap.

Hey, I like the turtle suits in the live action films. But your point about full CG is fair enough. I misunderstood you, and for that I apologize.

And I never said they should ignore the "important" parts of the story, I simply said they could do it in CGI if they had to make a choice on what SYLE of movie to do it in!

Again, I misunderstood what you were saying about the CGI.

If they did do it of course I'd want them to pay attention to all or most of the "details" from the game, rather than slap the Zelda names on some live action actors like the fake Zelda movie trailer implies. Even I would find that rather unpleasent to watch.

I actually found the Zelda trailer to be quite exhilarating (or at least, I would have had I not known that it was a fake the first time I watched it). But to each his own.

XD As long as they don't do a freaking Kirby movie, that'd be really dumb! Not that I don't like the game, it's....ok I guess.

...Never speak of this to anyone.... Ever.

I want the movie to be original, awesome, and dam well better use music from the game because the other video game based movies have not had original music.
but thats just what I would like to be in the movie

Originally Posted by outatime21

I want the movie to be original, awesome, and dam well better use music from the game because the other video game based movies have not had original music.
but thats just what I would like to be in the movie

i think that just taking the original game music from something like OoT or MM and using that as the movie's music doesn't serves the series much justice. That was MIDI music man! But that's probably not what u had in mind i hope, so they really need to modify and orcastrate the music before a movie ever gets on the big screen. Anyway in SSBB, most LoZ music was orcastrated(finally for the first time) and sounded very epic and that is the kind of treatment the series deserves and a movie deserves just as much.

i say it should be mixed! i like TP and Oot but i dont want to leave one out.... so i say both, mix it up