The Legend of Zelda Film Discussion: Volume IV

Originally Posted by Eternal Legend

What about Beowulf though? It's all CGI animated and yet, released onto the big screen. The same goes with Avatar, but it is a blend of CGI animation and live action.

I don't like the thought of someone playing as Link who looks absolutely nothing like Link in the games.

I think that depends on the make up artist. If Link's elven ears and long pointy nose are not convincing enough to be part of Link's physical character then it would be a disastrous laughing stock.

Though I believe with a well produced anime this problem is easily solved. But the fact of the matter is, Americans are not that comfortable with watching animated films unless it was made by Disney or Pixar. So unless a Zelda movie can be licensed by those animation companies, a high budget live action with an outstanding make up artist is the best bet for a Zelda movie to be popular in the USA IMO.

Originally Posted by Ganonslayer2000

I think that depends on the make up artist. If Link's elven ears and long pointy nose are not convincing enough to be part of Link's physical character then it would be a disastrous laughing stock.

Oh definitely. They will need some long-time artists and illustrators of Link to point the animators in the right direction.

Though I believe with a well produced anime this problem is easily solved. But the fact of the matter is, Americans are not that comfortable with watching animated films unless it was made by Disney or Pixar. So unless a Zelda movie can be licensed by those animation companies, a high budget live action with an outstanding make up artist is the best bet for a Zelda movie to be popular in the USA IMO.

I'm not so sure with anime business. Most anime shows don't even make it to the big screen, except for Studio Ghibli movies.

Originally Posted by Eternal Legend

I'm not so sure with anime business. Most anime shows don't even make it to the big screen, except for Studio Ghibli movies.

Right. This is why if a live action Zelda movie is never made for the big screen, a well produced Zelda anime for DVD release only would be good enough for me.

Originally Posted by Ganonslayer2000

Right. This is why if a live action Zelda movie is never made for the big screen, a well produced Zelda anime for DVD release only would be good enough for me.

That would make a lot of fans happy, but as for Nintendo trying to introduce it to a wider audience, it would miserably fail.

And on a random note: Post number 6,666. o-O

Agreed with Enuf, Link doesn't have to be a ladies-man/bad-ass to be a workable hero. Here's a list of popular screen heroes who weren't at least one of the two qualities listed above:

-Peter Parker: Not a ladies man until the 3rd movie, and when he became one the audience did not like him anyway. I could even argue about his bad-assery but I won't.

-Frodo: Neither a ladies man nor a real bad-ass, but audiences liked him anyway (Probably because of his 'never give up' quality).

-Sam Witwiki: A very awkward character in the first Transformers, who gets the girl by NOT being an outright ladies man. Has a few moments of bad-assery though.

-Luke Skywalker: Neither a ladies man nor was he a bad-ass (At least in the original movie).

In the end, Link would likely have quite a few bad-ass moments, but he wouldn't be the intentional, macho bad-ass like Bruce Cambell's or Bruce Willis' characters. And it would be fine for him to not be a ladies man, because some of film history's most popular heroes weren't.

As for his "look", as long as they don't get someone who looks like Robert Pattinson, or on the end of the spectrum, someone who looks gruff and Russel Crowe-esque then I will probably be fine with whoever they cast. They just need to aim for "average".

As for Romance, I agree with the idea that girl's should be chasing after Link's heart throughout the movie(s) and he be either oblivious to it, or not knowing how to handle the attention.

I really don't think that a Beowulf style CGI Zelda is the best option. If CGI is to be done, it should be done more with a game like Wind Waker, and less like Ocarina of Time. The issue lies with the Uncanny Valley.

The Uncanny Valley is an issue with robotics and CG artists. As a robot or computer model reaches a stage of almost looking realistic, we develop a sense of revulsion towards it. As an example, you see a cute robot which is basically a bucket turned upside down with some tank treads and a flashing light bulb on top. Your may find the robot cute or endearing, despite its crude appearance. Then you see a high-tech robot with a rubber skin substitute and complex facial expressions which is designed to replicate human movement and emotion as realistically as possible. That robot creeps you the hell out. The same issue lies with CG movies, where cute Pixar films look endearing, while realistic Beowulf films look weird, even though Beowulf has the 'better' animation.

As such, if Zelda is to be CGI, then it should not be done in a realistic style. It could maybe have a somewhat anime-ish look, but not too much realism. If Nintendo wishes to reach a large audience, live action is the best way to go.

For the oft-quoted complaint of 'they'll never find someone who looks like Link', I find that ridiculous. With a high budget special effects and costuming department, getting a Link who looks like Link shouldn't be that big an issue.

They make Wind Waker, and we complain that they've strayed too far from the established Zelda style. We want a game more like Ocarina. They make Twilight Princess, we complain that it's too much like Ocarina.

Yes, yes we do.

Back on the subject of CGI, I really prefer Live-Action but I agree that a straight to DVD release of a well produced Anime/CGI film would also work.

Since we are voting on whether or not we should have a Zelda movie, I just was thinking that, as much as I like the idea, that it just won't work. Everyone has been talking about stuff like CGI and what would work best, but I think the real problem is the Zelda plot.
When I took the time to analyze this, I just realized that in a Zelda game, the plot is based on what is best for game play, and it may not make for an interesting movie. The things that make the Zelda games so popular, like the puzzles (some more obvious than others) and dungeon dwelling just wouldn't apply to a movie basis.
The storyline to all Zelda games involves many dungeons, puzzles, small fights, and items, which are all interactive. Movies are not interactive; you just watch them. Based on these things, so far, it's not looking good.
Also, I would like to bring up the relationships involved in movies pertaining to the game series. Movies have antagonists, sometimes many, in which you grow to hate, and while that is easy with Ganondorf, you also never get to meet him until the end of the game. This makes things hard for a movie, not to mention finding a place for other bosses.
Alternatively, we could skip having other bosses, and have some way for Link to develop without multiple dungeons, bosses, quests, etc. My question now is, without those things, will it really be a Zelda movie?

I would like responses, and solutions to the problems I have posed here. Because I really would like to see a Zelda movie happen and work. Right now, I just don't see how it's possible.

I have hated this idea from the moment anyone thought of it, about a million years ago. There is no reason for there to be a movie. Stating so demeans the medium of Video games to be able to articulate a story in motion. The Zelda games should remain as such, not to be watched but to be experienced. Was this not the idea that the series was founded upon? To be a personal garden as Miyamoto described it.

Also, I just watched Hero of Time for the first time. I will not hold this film against future artists wanting to make a fan film, but critically speaking, I hated it. Acting, sound, effects, all awful. The Ganon costume was pretty well done, which was I suppose a redeemable quality, but the plot was as though someone chewed upon OoT, spit it out, and another person was left to determine wot took place, resulting in something that is not original, but rather, a terrible departure. And overall, many basic Zelda elements were butchered. Were a real Zelda movie ever to be made, heaven forbid, it would need to be a standalone story, something unique and new, without ruining the content of other games, and whilst staying true to the nature of the series.

So THERE!

PS-I am anti-Link talking, Purist baby. Unless he is talking about Mirrors under tables.

People say Zelda's style can never be made into a film, I have to disagree. Yes, it's obvious you can't do a literal adaptation, copying the in-game events word-for-word. Changes have to be made, as it is for any adaptation of anything.

As for the issue of the antagonist not really showing up until the end, that is an issue that is easily solved by having Ganon make appearances throughout the story. We already discussed diving into backstory and such. Not to mention, having an antagonist make few appearances doesn't necessarily ruin a movie. Anthony Hopkins' character in Silence of the Lambs had around 15 minutes of actual screen time, and Kevin Spacey's character in Se7en didn't appear until the very end. We also talked about splitting the film into two films to allow for other bosses and story.

As for the issue of Link talking, let's face it. We're going to have to bite that bullet eventually.

slaveofsanity, actual plot and character discussions were done on page 16, and only just recently did the whole "visual style" and "cgi" discussion come up.

And humulos, making a movie of Zelda does not demean the Video Game storytelling methods anymore than the LotR trilogy demeaned the actual LotR novels. Another example would be Iron Man, an adaptation of comic books that doesn't demean comic books.

To resolve problems with Ganondorf's role as the antagonist, I say that he would just have to become more active a villain. Like, instead of sitting on his laurels, he actually actively pursues Zelda when she escapes. Instead of learning that Ganondorf has done evil things when Link is older, we see him fight the knights of Hyrule, kill the king to gain ruler-ship, and begin his reign of terror. We'd see him orchestrate his attacks against the races, and see (at least the initial) battles.

Utilizing some flashbacks we'd see Ganondorf begin his quest for the Triforce, and how he eventually became obsessed by its power. Between some flashback scenes of Ganondorf, and also Link's interactions with Nabooru we'd learn what Ganondorf's original intent was. He could become something of a tragic villain, a person who you both pity and despise. Ganondorf should not be straight evil, and filled with cliches. Like I said, he should be a very "active" villain, which he can easily be.

Since I believe there should be a balance between the three main characters, there should be a lot more of Sheik than there was in the game. Sheik would offer some of the training that s/he received from Impa, and serve as companion for at least one dungeon, I would say the Shadow Temple. Why would Link need training? C'mon, does it make any sense that he would have received enough training amongst the Kokiri to fight off Ganondorf or his minions? And was there a swords trainer in the game who could work as a character to train Link in the movie? Plus, since Sheik lived through the 7 year war, s/he would be best suited to offer wisdom to Link on his quest.

Now, I'd also like the Sages to have a more active role, or at least get more than a minute's screen time a piece, but before going into that, I'd like to see what the community thinks of my ideas so far on Ganondorf and Sheik.

Originally Posted by ElJonno

As for the issue of Link talking, let's face it. We're going to have to bite that bullet eventually.

24 years and still going strong.

Originally Posted by TheLostLink1020

And humulos, making a movie of Zelda does not demean the Video Game storytelling methods anymore than the LotR trilogy demeaned the actual LotR novels. Another example would be Iron Man, an adaptation of comic books that doesn't demean comic books.

Not a good example. Both books and movies are restrictive art forms that do not contain input from the watcher/reader. Video games are played and have more untapped potential within them as conveyors of a story than any other medium. You get the most involvement possible, actually being the protagonist whilst getting every single thing a movie can offer. That is not to say they are better than movies, as some stories are meant to remain as movies and would be terrible video games, same with books (as we all know, many books are terrible movies) but my point is, why?

Why make a movie for the Zelda series and strip it of it's key feature, that being user interaction. Each game is longer than a movie, and more in-depth than any movie can possibly be. A movie would be restricting upon our freedom. I did not grow up on Zelda games loving them because of their well directed cinematography and brilliant orchestrated scores. Such things were not conceivable in the 1980s! No, I fell in love with exploration, with being in another world, with being able to go where I wanted and do what I wanted. Zelda games are inarguably about a great deal of exploration, certain cases excluded. Were I watching a movie I would retch knowing that caves would be passed by, walls would go un-bombed, certain people would not get talked to. It is not Zelda! It would be conforming the series to something that takes away from the fantastic niche it has carved into society! Zelda games literally ARE an art. They are beautiful experiences that affect our very emotions. Different emotions from those that Movies can produce, emotions that only come from our involvement.

As for comic books, I would similarly say that the movies do somewhat demean the comics. This is another example of subculture in our society. Do highly esteemed movie critics read comics? Not often. They are viewed as childish and mindless. These are simplistic and close-minded views. If you ask any X-Men fan what they thought of Gambit's portrayal in Origins Wolverine, they would display similar feelings of disgust at how much simpler and uninteresting he was compared to his comics adaptations. Now, that is not to say these movies are bad. In fact, comic book movies are among my favorite, and this is another transition that lends itself well to the movie making procedure. Comics similarly do not allow for user interaction, just a straightforward story. Unfortunately there is a lot that is lost in this translation, because it simply cannot fit. This is the movies great disadvantage, is time allotment. Comics are ongoing and have no such concerns, and Video Games are allotted 20-80+ hours each. Why should we restrict ourselves when we having a great system going already?

Bottom line for haters of large text, taking away our interaction takes away the Zelda experience.

The LostLink1020, I essentially agree with you 100%. Ganondorf as a 'tragic' villain is an idea I thoroughly support. In an effort to compare him to another famous movie villain, Darth Vader:

In the first Star Wars film, Darth Vader was basically a cliched film villain. He was evil, but no insight as to why. By the end of the two trilogies, we see why Vader became the way he is and eventually see him repent for all his atrocities. Ganondorf could work in a similar fashion.

When we are first introduced to Ganondorf, we see him as Zelda sees him: evil. We just see him as a character who lusts for power, but we never really look into why. As the story goes on, we learn of his childhood. Wind Waker showed a hint of Ganondorf's jealousy for Hyrule. It could be that Hyrule was the land of plenty and the desert he ruled was a barren wasteland. Perhaps his original quest for the Triforce was a way to free him and his people from the desert. The more he learned of it and the harder he looked, the greater his desire became. By the time he finally obtains the Triforce, his original goal is lost in the back of his mind. His anger and hatred of Hyrule, combined with his own personal greed and lust, consume him and corrupt him making him the evil king we all know.

By the end of the film(s), the audience is all expecting the obvious solution: Ganondorf realizes he has lost his way and betrayed his people, far from his original goal when he set out. Realizing the error of his ways, Ganondorf vows to do good to make up for the sins he has committed. As we all know, that's not how it goes at all.

In what can be a testament to how power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely (and no power would be more absolute than the Triforce), Ganondorf refuses to accept his defeat at the hands of Link. In a move that would catch most viewers unfamiliar with the game off-guard, Ganon's rage towards Link, Hyrule and Zelda, combined with his insatiable thirst for power, consume him in a most terrifying way. His unbridled anger and greed cause the Triforce of Power to release all its strength into Ganon, transforming him into the shape his heart most reflects. That final battle doesn't need to be an epic showdown, but a more tragic scene. It shows how great a person Ganondorf could have been, but instead we are left with the beast he has become.

I also highly agree with Sheik having a larger role overall. His role as sort of a mentor is a good one, since no one is going to buy that this forest kid is just amazing at using swords and bows and horse riding and whatnot, despite never having used them before. Though horse riding could be something Malon shows him. Sheik also helping out with the Shadow Temple is a good move, as the two could simply chase Bongo Bongo into the Shadow Temple (skipping the well level altogether). It fits the story well, and also avoid the monotonous gameplay style of Link just collecting stuff the whole movie.

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------

Originally Posted by humulos

24 years and still going strong.

You have to remember that half of those 24 years were because the technology didn't really allow it. We're in an age now where not only can games have voice acting, but they recruit very famous and award winning voice actors to do their voices. Zelda can't live in the past forever.

Having a Zelda film does mean that little things like exploration and NPC interaction go by the wayside, but that doesn't mean that a film shouldn't be attempted, or even that it couldn't be any good. Your arguments mean that Zelda will always be a great video game, but it doesn't mean that it can't be a great movie. We know that Batman will always be a great comic book character, but he is also a great film character. The same logic can be applied to Zelda.

There are little things that make Zelda a great game. These are things that most likely would get cut from a film. But those little things we love so much do not necessarily mean the film would be a bad one. In fact, cutting those things probably improves pacing and therefor the film.

Originally Posted by ElJonno

You have to remember that half of those 24 years were because the technology didn't really allow it. We're in an age now where not only can games have voice acting, but they recruit very famous and award winning voice actors to do their voices. Zelda can't live in the past forever.

Having a Zelda film does mean that little things like exploration and NPC interaction go by the wayside, but that doesn't mean that a film shouldn't be attempted, or even that it couldn't be any good. Your arguments mean that Zelda will always be a great video game, but it doesn't mean that it can't be a great movie. We know that Batman will always be a great comic book character, but he is also a great film character. The same logic can be applied to Zelda.

There are little things that make Zelda a great game. These are things that most likely would get cut from a film. But those little things we love so much do not necessarily mean the film would be a bad one. In fact, cutting those things probably improves pacing and therefor the film.

Technology for text boxes didn't exist? Metal Gear begs to differ, as does Bucky o' Hare, Mega Man and countless other titles. Link could have talked but was left mute so that words were not being put into the players mouth. It was not because of non existent technology

Secondly, if the conversations that are being had here don't help in your case of making a good movie. Most of wot I am seeing, and most of wot I have seen are attempted rehashes at Ocarina of Time. A Zelda movie will have to be completely original for it to be good, you can't just take something already done and tweak till it's acceptable. That, my friend is exactly wot I was saying, that you are saying the game in it's current form isn't good enough, that a movie is a better portrayal.

No you bring up a good point, nothing I say means that a Zelda movie cannot be good. I am not saying that. A Zelda movie can be fantastic, well done, and beautiful masterpiece. My main point however, is why would you want to limit the possibilities! Imagine, an amazingly well done script! Camera work that captures each moment perfectly! A beautiful orchestra providing fantastic music, both listful and dynamic! All of those things with the technology we have now, are 100% possible in a video game! Now, if I, or any other true Zelda fan had the choice, between a 150 minute movie or a 40 hour game that includes all the content of the movie, plus more scenes, plus the important gameplay factor, and wot do we have?

Perfection. This is wot I am trying to convey. Yes, a Zelda movie can be good! In fact, it probably would be due to the pressure of 24 years of success! But a game can be better! That is why I am anti-movie, I don't settle for silver when gold is an option.

I'm not saying a movie is a better portrayal of Ocarina of Time. I'm saying that Ocarina, in its current form, would not work as a movie. I'm saying that for it to work as a movie, things need to be changed. The game, as a game, is fine. The story would be tedious and boring as a film adaptation. We are discussing ways for that particular story to be altered to work as a film.

As for an original Zelda story, I'm all for that. If there was a way to make an all new plot-line work as a story, go for it. The biggest problem I have with fan adaptations is that they all take the original story of Ocarina of Time and butcher it to fit in a 90-150 minute time-frame. What we were discussing is to extend the story of multiple films to keep it intact. If that can't be done, or if a way to condense it into one film properly can't be found, then I'd say go for an original story. My main point of doing Ocarina is that it's the most popular game in the franchise, therefor the most likely to do a big box-office turnout, and that it provides a nice starting point for the franchise, introducing all the characters and elements nicely.

To apply elements we are speaking of into an actual Zelda game would be every gamer's fantasy. That, however, should be its own thread. I believe Zelda will always be a better game than a movie, but I think it can be one hell of a movie as well.

With that we have reached the end of our discussion. I must surely say that you are very well spoken for a newb, seriously I was surprised to see you only have 19 posts. We need more like you, who do Zelda discussion right.

The only thing I would add, is that Zelda most certainly has enough mindshare to be a big box office turnout, no matter it's basis Therefore, I hope for an original if they day does come, and it's honestly not a far fetched idea. And no matter wot, you know I will be there opening day first in the theater, because no matter wot, Zelda is still Zelda.

Except for the Manga (Wind Waker and Cyborg 009 style ones excluded) There was just no reason for those to come and butcher everything. (off topic immunity from flaming me!)

If it was an original story, I'd like to see it take place after the game series, where you have Ganon 'coming back' long after everyone has forgotten him, Link and the Triforce. Another good way to reintroduce all the concepts is to make it where everyone in the series has forgotten everything.

*Merged with the general film discussion*

yea a zelda movie should definitely not be like lord of the rings. lord of the rings had many characters all with different motives and it jumped around a lot. A zelda movie should be more personal, dealing with links struggles regarding dealing with his loss of a childhood, being forced into a role he didnt choose, the futility of his quest ect. ive been tossing around ideas for a OoT movie for a while now and one of the main themes i love playing with is the fact that Link Zelda and Ganon are destined to enact their battle for eternity. Imagine knowing that all your struggles will be reset when you are reborn? how would you deal with that? would you still continue? would you rage against your fate like ganon? that would make a good movie. and id like to think that ganon is sort of the lamb to be slaughtered so to speak in return for the land of hyrule having the blessings of the goddesses.

This is way off topic but I would like to say this the discussion here can continue. There will never be a zelda movie without a script and there is no intention to write one from nintendo or hollywood at the moment. So instead of blabbling about what we would like to see in a zelda movie that is completely not going to happen. My idea is, what if ZU collaberated to write a script of a potential zelda movie and attempt to sell it off. I know it sounds very far fetched but movie developers may buy the script even if hey don't want to make the movie so no one else gets the script and they own the rights. If the script turns out good, it could earn ZU and some of the main contributers a buttload of money. And even if it fails, it would be a good experience and you have a movie script to profit from.

It's just an idea that could with some hard work and perseverance stick through and make ZU wealthier than before and a lot of zelda fans happy.