'The Legend of Zelda' - movie.

Originally Posted by super-fergus

Yes! Well if they'd let me.
The Vastness of Hyrule is to big to fit into 1 film.

Lord of the Rings is an exception in the film world. Because it was based on a trilogy of novels that had achieved worldwide popularity for over sixty years, the studio saw fit to fund all three films to be made together. As far as I am aware, this has never been done before or since in the movie industry, but with good reason. Such a strategy is a large financial risk to everyone involved.

If films are not developed separately to capitalise on the previous films, then trilogies are developed using a two-step rule, such as with the Matrix and Pirates of the Caribbean. If the first stand-alone film sells, then two films are made together to capitalise and expand upon the original film's success.

If you can sell one stand-alone film script to Nintendo and make money at the box office, then they will feel confident about developing your trilogy. But they are going to have very little confidence in developing a full three films together that may turn out to be a major loss and damage the credibility of the franchise. It's too risky.

Don't you think I'm aware of this?
Have faith.

Originally Posted by super-fergus

Don't you think I'm aware of this?
Have faith.

I'd rather "be realistic". It makes more money.

Seriously. If you want to get a Zelda movie made, don't go out of your way to give Nintendo reason to say "no".

I'm realistic too.

I'll go out of my way to give Nintendo to say"yes"

You underestimate my knowledge of the industry.

Originally Posted by super-fergus

I'll go out of my way to give Nintendo to say"yes".

You underestimate my knowledge of the industry.

We will see. A trilogy remains unrealistic.

But possible!

Originally Posted by super-fergus

But possible!

You're living in a dream world, Neo. The development of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy was secured because the novel trilogy has remained a worldwide phenomenon for sixty years and the reasons for its popularity was generally consistent amongst readers. Studios only invest in films if they are sure that they are going to sell, and in the case of the Lord of the Rings (and with another phenomenon, Harry Potter), studios knew that the films would sell.

All other comic-book and video game adaptations are made as one film, because they only possess a niche fanbase at most. Only when the film has sold well to the mainstream audience do the investors gauge whether it is a franchise worth expanding. The Legend of Zelda has a niche fanbase; nowhere near the popularity of Lord of the Rings, nor the level of interest in a motion picture. The fanbase is equally conflicted amongst itself because fans enjoy the games for entirely different reasons. The Zelda franchise is in a state of turmoil because its most recent games just aren't appealing to the numbers that used to buy the older games.

Twilight Princess in particular failed to sell high numbers in Japan, attributed to the mature nature of the title that appealed to Americans. With a similar war situation and serious emotional complex between the characters, Nintendo will be looking at your film with the past experience of the title. Do Nintendo want to invest in a trilogy that won't appeal to their home audience? They could just as easily make a cheap anime like Pokemon and rake in cash, although they have higher standards with Zelda.

What you're asking is overambitious to the extreme where I might as well just say you're going to fail and leave this topic now. But I've never had a serious discussion about the nature of a Zelda film, so I'll keep going.

Raian - I Know of this already! You really do seriously doubt my ability.
You have no idea how I'm strategically doing this, so please do not place me into judgment of 'living in a dream world'

Nintendo do not what to blow their money on a cheap anime like pokemon.
Nintendo understand that Zelda is one of their biggest and most promising franchiese, and would be willing to invest in a live action film, with caution that is.

Who said i didn't intend to make it through the 'two step' rule as you put it?
I've already thought about it.

Listen, i respect you, and you obviously know what your talking about in this debate. If you could PM me your details , then possibly we could work out something.

Sugestion
Make one good film, that was written with a trilogy in mind, but works out perfectly as a stand alone film with no cliff hangers.
So if it goes down well, you can pitch your other two films.
Like what the Matrix did!!!

Gah! i get shivers when i hear the Matrix trilogy.
It's like what Raian said how it can/would work.

The only thing that bothers me that how dissapointed
fans might be if i pitch the first film without having the highly anticipated
'Link vs Ganondorf' scene. It'll have to be a significant balance.

If you are intending to develop a trilogy based on the two-step programme, then that changes everything. Saying to the developers "I want to make a trilogy of films." won't sell it. Saying "I want to make a movie" and having two scripts ready if the film succeeds will have a much greater chance of success for what you're planning.

I don't really have anything more to say. What you have told me about the screenplay sounds promising (although maybe a bit too melodramatic). I hope the writing continues to go smoothly. But as a piece of advice, if you can see that someone is misunderstanding you, don't just say "I know what I'm doing." because it's not a reassuring statement on its own.

The only thing that bothers me that how dissapointed fans might be if i pitch the first film without having the highly anticipated 'Link vs Ganondorf' scene. It'll have to be a significant balance.

Kill Ganondorf in the first film, and then bring him back as the Demon King Ganon in the other two films.

Well, at least something is cleared up!
Do you have AIM? I want to discuss this in more detail.

Originally Posted by super-fergus

Well, at least something is cleared up!
Do you have AIM? I want to discuss this in more detail.

Unfortunately, I am stuck with MSN right now. Use PMs for the time being. It'll be cool to hear your ideas.

yeah! Ganondorf in the first film, and Ganon in the second and third!
Or vice versa

Originally Posted by Raian

You're living in a dream world, Neo. The development of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy was secured because the novel trilogy has remained a worldwide phenomenon for sixty years and the reasons for its popularity was generally consistent amongst readers. Studios only invest in films if they are sure that they are going to sell, and in the case of the Lord of the Rings (and with another phenomenon, Harry Potter), studios knew that the films would sell.

All other comic-book and video game adaptations are made as one film, because they only possess a niche fanbase at most. Only when the film has sold well to the mainstream audience do the investors gauge whether it is a franchise worth expanding. The Legend of Zelda has a niche fanbase; nowhere near the popularity of Lord of the Rings, nor the level of interest in a motion picture. The fanbase is equally conflicted amongst itself because fans enjoy the games for entirely different reasons. The Zelda franchise is in a state of turmoil because its most recent games just aren't appealing to the numbers that used to buy the older games.

I agree, the ability to make money rules all of these sorts of desicions. Lord of the Rings is popular all over the world, not to mention is a damn fine piece of literature, and Harry Potter has done quite well for itself. While Zelda will never have the appeal Lord of the Rings does, (due in part to Lord of the Rings being much older) it does have a pretty good fan base. But the thing I don't understand his how do games like Tomb Raider become movies? Its not a bad series, but it is nowhere near as good as Zelda. Resident Evil was a good game series, too, not as good Zelda though. As stated in another thread The Legend of Zelda is the sixth best selling game franchise. That means better than the two game franchises that hve been made into movies recently. My point is, I fail to see how they get movies and Zelda does not.

Originally Posted by Twilight W-K

I agree, the ability to make money rules all of these sorts of desicions. Lord of the Rings is popular all over the world, not to mention is a damn fine piece of literature, and Harry Potter has done quite well for itself. While Zelda will never have the appeal Lord of the Rings does, (due in part to Lord of the Rings being much older) it does have a pretty good fan base. But the thing I don't understand his how do games like Tomb Raider become movies? Its not a bad series, but it is nowhere near as good as Zelda. Resident Evil was a good game series, too, not as good Zelda though. As stated in another thread The Legend of Zelda is the sixth best selling game franchise. That means better than the two game franchises that hve been made into movies recently. My point is, I fail to see how they get movies and Zelda does not.

You can sell films on the title alone. Was there any reason to remake the Omen? No, but it made money all the same. In the case of Tomb Raider, Lara Croft's breasts sold the games and the films.

Raian beat me to it about Tomb Raider.
Resident Evil makes films because it can offer nonstop violence.

Arguable point, between the amount of zelda and Lord of the rings fans.
But that's not the point, its for a world wide audience, so i better make it like that.

And i figured if I'm going to be writing this for over a good 7+ years, I'm sure it will be a 'dam' good story. If i was taking this film in to so much consideration, don't you think i've thought all these things through?

I haven't finished writing it, so i can change it in anyway i want, to fit better with the story, or how it will sell, but i do think, even at this stage, there is a hefty amount of material to carry 3 films on it's back.

And when you think 'super-fergus's' project, don't think that im just going to half arse it. I won't touch it, not even a single film until im at a stage where it can be produced world wide as much as any film you see in the cinema today.
Think in the same box for your ideas too! I'm getting involved in these forums to take an insight of the arguements and views on a film, what people would want to see etc etc.

I might just be the one to make it.
There isn't many die hard zelda fans, that are also a film making enthusiast.
I've already thought of many other film scripts to work my way up. plus, I'll be the youngest i can to get into this Los Angeles film school. one more year to go!

I always wondered what it would be like to make a Resident Evil movie based on its film noir storyline. I know it wouldn't get the same audience, which is the main reason why we'll never see it, but still...

Back from the world of dreams, I think the main issue that we have to overcome is how to bring out the charm of the Zelda universe. Having a large kingdom where the heroes walk across it has already been done in Lord of the Rings. If you try to do that again, then people will be quick to label it as a LotR imitator. Yet the Kingdom of Hyrule is, for the most part, exactly like the LotR kingdom, albeit more circular than linear. I, in all honesty, don't find the land of Hyrule charming in comparison with LotR.

And this is why I feel apprehensive about a "medieval fantasy epic". It's been done. A "Zelda fantasy epic" hasn't been done though... Maybe we should start looking at what makes Zelda unique and build the film on that basis instead.

Originally Posted by super-fergus

Raian - I Know of this already! You really do seriously doubt my ability.
You have no idea how I'm strategically doing this, so please do not place me into judgment of 'living in a dream world'

Nintendo do not what to blow their money on a cheap anime like pokemon.
Nintendo understand that Zelda is one of their biggest and most promising franchiese, and would be willing to invest in a live action film, with caution that is.

Who said i didn't intend to make it through the 'two step' rule as you put it?
I've already thought about it.

Listen, i respect you, and you obviously know what your talking about in this debate. If you could PM me your details , then possibly we could work out something.

You realize Pokemon is its biggest franchise, its bigger than Zelda. They actually spend a lot of money on that "cheap Pokemon anime".