Zelda Movie: Volume III

Really? That's why you guys want "unknowns"? All you see is the actor? I honestly have never had this problem. Sure I make jokes about them and stuff (except Morgan Freeman, he is God.....and Appa), but during the movie they are the character. I'm not against getting new people to act, but I see no need for it.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

Really? That's why you guys want "unknowns"? All you see is the actor? I honestly have never had this problem. Sure I make jokes about them and stuff (except Morgan Freeman, he is God.....and Appa), but during the movie they are the character. I'm not against getting new people to act, but I see no need for it.

I don't necessarily have a problem with it.
Just so long as they aren't hugely established actors.

except Morgan Freeman...

In fact, Morgan Freeman should be in it!
Morgan Freeman for Sara-icantspellhisname!

Originally Posted by Mattocks

In fact, Morgan Freeman should be in it!
Morgan Freeman for Sara-icantspellhisname!

Morgan Freeman as EVERYONE.

Originally Posted by super-fergus

Morgan Freeman as EVERYONE.

That's it everyone. This thread is now over, it took 3 volumes but we did it. I'd like to thank everyone who had a menaingful contribution. It's been fun, and I hope the rest of our forums careers will be as sucessfull.
Thank you.

Mattcoks out!

Morgan Freeman would make the best Link... and the best Epona. And who doesn't want to see Morgan Freeman riding on the shoulders of Morgan Freeman?

To Hell with.. Morgan Freeman.

Originally Posted by Enuf3

To Hell with.. Morgan Freeman.

BLASPHEMY!

EDIT:

So here's how the movie should NOT be done haha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3qy0Gc3n0c

This one was a parody of what the movie could be, but still, the basice premise of someone from our world going into Hyrule... I never want to see that!

Who the hell is Morgan Freeman! Please don't Flame me!

Anyway here's how it should go

The Legend of Zelda(Movie One)
Loosely based on OOT Ganon is main villian, Agahnim makes a brief appearance in the beginning but the focus is on Ganon. Link is about Fifteen. Already Knows he isn't a Kokiri.

The Legend of Zelda: Evil's Return(Movie Two)
Occurs Three years later. Link is riding around Hyrule on Epona and finds a Kokiri who him the Deku Tree needs him. Loosely follows ALTTP with Agahnim as the main villian who breaks the seal and the sages(one's from OOT) are being imprisoned, though only Naborru and Impa are imprsioned at first.

The Legend of Zelda: Mask of Chaos(a.k.a Majora's Mask)(Movie Three)
Loosely based on MM stars a different Link. Ends with Link obtaining the Fierce Diety mask and Slaying Majora

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight(Movie Four)
loosely based on TP(Zant is the main villian though). Starts a third link. After the mirror is shattered link picks up one of the pieces and let's it fall. The piece begins to glow ominously as link departs.

The Legend of Zelda: The Final Battle(Movie five)
begins with Ganon being resurrected, sends out Dark Link to kill the descendants of the one's that destroyed him at the end of the second movie. Ends with Link and Zelda fighting Ganon as he was in OOT but they're teaming up on him like in WW. Link channels the souls of the previous two Links in this battle. Afterwards he uses the Triforce to wish that evil will never plague hyrule again.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Who the hell is Morgan Freeman! Please don't Flame me!

he is God.

seriously. he played God in Bruce Almighty.

also, wikipedia is your best friend.

also also, I think 5 movies is wayyy too many. three should be the maximum (marketing ploy XD) anything more than a trilogy is too much.
does Link beat Ganon in the first one? I think the first movie should definitely be open-ended, but still *finish a story* - even at the best possible ideas we can think of, and even if we say "ooooh this is going to be epic," we still don't know how well-received it will be. finish the story of the first movie just in case the whole thing bombs.

I don't know if it was Super Fergus or someone else, but they described five movies before (a loooooooooong time ago) and it looked like it would work out really well! I personally only want to see one movie as I've been burned too many times by sequals, but the way that guy explained it, it made me happy. I'll try to find the quote...

EDIT

I FOUND IT! I was wrong... Enuf was the one describing 5 films:

Originally Posted by Enuf3

I disagree 100%, obviously. Like I said.. at the most, one Link should be used twice... no more. Maybe appear in flashbacks or shared visions between the chosen heroes... But throwing the same Link in for a third quest is called "beating a dead horse". It's just stupid. How many times can one person save the world?

Besides, the story of Hyrule covers many many many years. You don't want to keep a film series within a small time frame. There's so much to tell.

The way I see it - it should go:

The Legend of Zelda - sixteen year-old Link embarks on a quest to save the princess and kingdom from the evil Ganon.

The Legend of Zelda II - That same Link, two years later, now facing adulthood has to embark on another quest to prevent Agahnim from resurrecting Ganon. At the end of the film, the hero makes the ultimate sacrifice to seal Ganon back into the sacred realm.. It ends with the audience not knowing if Link survives or not.

The Legend of Zelda III - A new Link, many many years later, around 16/17 in age embarks on a quest to stop a new villain who threatens the world. I'd like to see this be some sort of adaptation of Majora's Mask.

The Legend of Zelda IV - A new Link, a new villain only to pull a TP and have the puppet master end up being Ganon at the end, who has been released from the sacred realm. Ganon gets away.

The Legend of Zelda V - The same Link has the final showdown with Ganon. A cool idea would be to have this Link channel the power and spirits of all past heroes.

Man, that's the second time in one week that I've agreed with Enuf... I must be getting sick... just joking, Enuf haha

That's where i got the basic idea from. And Ganon is sealed in the first, freed in the second, and resurrected in the fifth only to finally die

Originally Posted by Joy-Rider

I don't know if it was Super Fergus or someone else, but they described five movies before (a loooooooooong time ago) and it looked like it would work out really well! I personally only want to see one movie as I've been burned too many times by sequals, but the way that guy explained it, it made me happy. I'll try to find the quote...

EDIT

I FOUND IT! I was wrong... Enuf was the one describing 5 films:



Man, that's the second time in one week that I've agreed with Enuf... I must be getting sick... just joking, Enuf haha

You're learning.

Why shouldn't there be any more than three? I think it can work with five

can you tell me why there should be more than one?

at the point where a movie, especially a movie with *one story* goes beyond three movies, it loses its appeal. the movies start dragging on and on. it doesn't take that long to tell a good story.

I dunno, it's opinion, obviously. and star wars did well enough going through several movies - though, they started with a trilogy and developed a large fanbase before they expanded it. ...or did they start with a single movie, and expand it to a trilogy? and then later expand it from there?

I dunno, it just seems awfully ambitious, and...boring.

anyway, I digress. it's just opinion, likely not going to change your mind, and I'd like to see the first movie get off the ground before I start talking sequels.

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

Why shouldn't there be any more than three? I think it can work with five

I wrote a long detailed post about this earlier, but don't feel like finding it, so I'm just going to paraphrase.

There is a reason movie trilogies work so well. The first movie is usually made as a stand alone. The story is complete, everything is resolved. That way if it is not worthy of a sequel, everyone whi did like it is content and don't feel like they're waiting for the story to end. The next two movies are basically a two part story. They can stand alone, but will leave some questions unasnwered. They are not direct continuations of the first, but can involve the same themes and characters. The point of having these ones connected is to draw the established fan base back, and leave them wanting more after the second movie. The third movie then wraps everything up, and leaves everyone satisfied. But going beyond that often ends up in a down hill slope only being continued as a money cow.

To be completely honest, with a story as ambitious as Zelda, it would either require two really long movies (I'm talking well over two and a half, maybe even three hours) , or better yet, a mini series.

For example, The Majora's Mask Manga just pounded through the story. Each adventure(Woodfall, Snowhead, Great Bay, and Ikana) could have been divided into seperate manga books with all their sidequests and whatnot, but each one was summed up in a chapter. Ikana, which was my favorite part of the game, was pretty much completely skipped over.

If the potential zelda movie was equivalent to the manga, ut would simply not do the zelda franchise justice, therefore would need a mini-series to really develop all the character and not make the races of Hyrule just fancy extras.

Originally Posted by Shaelyn

can you tell me why there should be more than one?

at the point where a movie, especially a movie with *one story* goes beyond three movies, it loses its appeal. the movies start dragging on and on. it doesn't take that long to tell a good story.

I dunno, it's opinion, obviously. and star wars did well enough going through several movies - though, they started with a trilogy and developed a large fanbase before they expanded it. ...or did they start with a single movie, and expand it to a trilogy? and then later expand it from there?

I dunno, it just seems awfully ambitious, and...boring.

anyway, I digress. it's just opinion, likely not going to change your mind, and I'd like to see the first movie get off the ground before I start talking sequels.

Because Zelda isn't just one story.

And every film would be different. Again, different Links, different Zeldas, different time periods, different villains, different quests.

Something like Harry Potter gets tiring because it's the same damn ugly kids doing the same damn annoying crap.

Zelda is very different and could easily work for five or six films without leaving audiences saying "Been there, done that."

Originally Posted by Shaelyn

can you tell me why there should be more than one?

FTW... and I'll explain why in a bit.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

There is a reason movie trilogies work so well. The first movie is usually made as a stand alone. The story is complete, everything is resolved.

And this is the reason why! If one sets out to do a trilogy, he should just leave unanswered question. I mean, I always look to the Matrix for this. At the end of the Matrix, you find out Neo is the one and can do a whole bunch of awesome things, and then he flies out leaving the audience thinking 'oh, the story is done, and what a good story it was!' Because everything was resolved, the second movie usually opens doors that should not have been open and creates stuff that sometimes is in conflict with what the first story told. An example of this is Neo being only one of a handful of ones. He was no savior, he was just a mistake, and because of that, it cheapens the first movie.

I say that if they are going to do more than one film, do the one film with unanswered questions even if it does bomb at the box office.

Originally Posted by Mattocks

That way if it is not worthy of a sequel, everyone whi did like it is content and don't feel like they're waiting for the story to end. The next two movies are basically a two part story. They can stand alone, but will leave some questions unasnwered. They are not direct continuations of the first, but can involve the same themes and characters. The point of having these ones connected is to draw the established fan base back, and leave them wanting more after the second movie. The third movie then wraps everything up, and leaves everyone satisfied. But going beyond that often ends up in a down hill slope only being continued as a money cow.

Just as long as they don't screw up the third film like in X-Men three.

Originally Posted by -Link-182-

To be completely honest, with a story as ambitious as Zelda, it would either require two really long movies (I'm talking well over two and a half, maybe even three hours) , or better yet, a mini series.

For example, The Majora's Mask Manga just pounded through the story. Each adventure(Woodfall, Snowhead, Great Bay, and Ikana) could have been divided into seperate manga books with all their sidequests and whatnot, but each one was summed up in a chapter. Ikana, which was my favorite part of the game, was pretty much completely skipped over.

If the potential zelda movie was equivalent to the manga, ut would simply not do the zelda franchise justice, therefore would need a mini-series to really develop all the character and not make the races of Hyrule just fancy extras.

I like this idea when put into enuf's five movie scenario. I am not totally opposed to more than one movie, but would prefer only one. Zelda does leave room for more than one movie, and in fact lends itself to multiple movies because there are multiple Links. It could even become canon if it is done properly. As long as there's no King wondering what's for dinner, I think we will be fine

SO... my conclusion is this: I only want one movie. I want one movie that has everything explained and done by the end of it. I do not want any loose ends. I want this because I think getting one Zelda movie will be a gift enough and also because of how they will probably make sequals if it does go over well (which I will not want to see unless there are loose ends) and I don't want those sequals to sully the good name of Zelda.

Originally Posted by Enuf3

You're learning.

Woah man... I still disagree with you on a LOT. For instance I hate WW and you hate TP haha... we can still debate

Originally Posted by Enuf3

Because Zelda isn't just one story.

And every film would be different. Again, different Links, different Zeldas, different time periods, different villains, different quests.

Something like Harry Potter gets tiring because it's the same damn ugly kids doing the same damn annoying crap.

Zelda is very different and could easily work for five or six films without leaving audiences saying "Been there, done that."

no, you're right. Zelda is multiple stories that have for the most part rehashed the same plot. the thing is...I think that's a lot easier to implement in games without it getting old, by adding new dungeons and such, than it is to do so in movies. with movies, the rehashing of the same plot will stand out more. I could see one traditional "rescue Zelda" plot coming to the big screen, and *maybe* one "Link goes off on a side adventure in some foreign land" sequel. how many movies that's done in is unknown, but I can't imagine it being more than four - and that's a huuuuuuuge stretch.

sorry. it's gonna say "been there, done that" if it sticks to the formula of the game series.