102 replies to this topic

[coinilius]

I like the Mario movie as well, actually - just thought I'd share that

[Duke Serkol]

AAAHH! That's way too horrible to imagine! >_<

Sorry for scarring you

RE was very cinematic and gory but none of that was displayed anywhere in either movie, the dark atmosphere with zombies slowly overrunning the Police Station as the characters barely escape was not beyond the film's ability to capture

True 'dat.


Going back to Fyxe and Kirby, I've gone to the Rainbow Resort and they report the story of the GBA port to be the same as in the NES game (http://kirby.classic...mare/story.html)
Meaning no Star Warriors and Kirby has a conversation with Dedede!

[Fyxe]

No, I knew about that already, Serkol. The story for Nightmare is the same as Adventure.

However, I forgot about him talking.

I'm sure the Star Warriors were mentioned somewhere else. Possibly in Amazing Mirror manual.

Edited by Fyxe, 01 March 2007 - 08:22 PM.

[Hylian]

Bring back the Zelda cartoons? Totally! I say the OoT MM concept would be interesting to see. Young Link would have a NOT dorky personality. You would be able to se the boss battles from an outside perspective. It'd be really cool.

[CID Farwin]

Interestng...

I have nothing to say about Kirby, Mario brothers movie, resident evil, or pretty well almost all old cartoons.(I wish I did, I haven't seen practically any of these.)

but,

I love the idea, but I don't think that they should make cartoons, there's too much plot to be made up, and movies would just be better. I'm just worried that anyone who attempts will mess it up somehow, like putting sleeping zelda in OoT or something like:

making Ganondorf Zelda's brother or casting the Gorons in the role of Moblins...

I've thought about making movies of the Zelda games, and my biggest barrier is how to make it not suck, yet still be true to the games. I don't even care if someone else makes it, as long as they don't take too many "liberties."

I think a lot of these problems would arise from trying to make a timeline where none exists(e.g. sticking the oracles in.f) I say someone should make the movies/cartoons, just keep the style(be specific to games), keep the plot(could extend/further plot with some games.)

Maybe I'm just too far into the "change nothing unless it needs to be changed" mindset, but if someone's going to make a cartoon/movie about Zelda, then it should be about Zelda, not their interperatation of Zelda.

[Duke Serkol]

I'm sure the Star Warriors were mentioned somewhere else. Possibly in Amazing Mirror manual.

Ah, okay, I'll check that out later then (since I actually do own this one )

[SOAP]

It doesn't take much more than taking off your Mario fanboy cap to enjoy the film for what it is.

Actually the Mario movie sis what got me into Mario in the first place. Before, I think I've only owned one of the old games, I think Mario Pinball or such and I played a little of my friend's Super Mario Bros. for SNES. Then my mom hgave my game and my NEs away one day without me knowing and I kinda lost interest after that. I dunno, I was more into playing with Barbies then. Yes, Barbies, shut up! Then I saw the movie as young kid and it brought those characters to life in a way that bunch of pixels jumping around my screen never could. I've been obsessed with everything Mario ever since. That's why I get annoyed when people tell me how much the movie sucked and totally cheapened the Mario franchise. If it wasn't for the movie I probably be the big fan I am today. I wouldn't be called SOAP.

Edited by SOAP, 02 March 2007 - 01:02 AM.

[Duke Serkol]

Just read the whole manual. Couldn't find any mention of Star Warriors (<- relief)

Edited by Duke Serkol, 02 March 2007 - 08:06 AM.

[spunky-monkey]

Maybe I'm just too far into the "change nothing unless it needs to be changed" mindset, but if someone's going to make a cartoon/movie about Zelda, then it should be about Zelda, not their interperatation of Zelda.

EXACTLY. Any film maker or director should behave like Peter Jackson does who relied heavily on Tolkien's work for the LOTR movies and not substitute their own half-baked script within the fictional universe(s). This is one of the reasons why any movie based on Zelda would be disastrous as the man nominated for the job will have no appreciation for the games, or even video games in general.

Edited by Ricky, 02 March 2007 - 12:12 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Hear ye! Hear ye! The all-knowing prophet hath spoken! What more dost thou hat to say us, oh wise one? Maybe next weeks winning lottery number?

And I personally thought Jackson did a really shitty job at staying true to the LotR tale when he made his trilogy. Yeah, nice movies, but why the fuck is Aragorn an emo wuss-bitch? What happened to Sauroman? And I rather wonder how the hell he managed to turn Faramir into a villain. Not to mention the army of the dead...

And this is the kind of stuff you people are complaining about, for the record.

[Fyxe]

Yeah, nice movies, but why the fuck is Aragorn an emo wuss-bitch?

Okay, the word 'emo' is thrown around far, far too much these days, especially on the internet. And this is one such occasion. How on (Middle)Earth is Aragorn 'emo'? Dear heavenly hell. If that's emo, then do you even know what 'emotions' are? Just showing emotions doesn't make you emo, you know.

Bloody hell, it's like when somebody called Colin in Twilight Princess emo. EMO. COLIN. He's a CHILD, for the sake of bloody goddamn monkey pizzle.

Edited by Fyxe, 02 March 2007 - 02:14 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Just showing emotions doesn't make you emo, you know.

Nope, it doesn't. Being all: "Curses, I am not cool with the thought of becoming a king. I better live go hide in the woods and be all uncomfortable when sombody calls me out on it. Self-doubt FTW! Oh yeah, and Arwen doesn't love me anymore! *Cry* Good thing that horse is around..." does, however.

Bloody hell, it's like when somebody called Colin in Twilight Princess emo. EMO. COLIN. He's a CHILD, for the sake of bloody goddamn monkey pizzle.

Yeah, but that somebody is the wise and all-knowing prophet who foresaw the Zelda flick’s suckyness, so he can't possibly be wrong about that.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 02 March 2007 - 02:44 PM.

[Fyxe]

Being all: "Curses, I am not cool with the thought of becoming a king. I better live go hide in the woods and be all uncomfortable when sombody calls me out on it. Self-doubt FTW! Oh yeah, and Arwen doesn't love me anymore! *Cry* Good thing that horse is around..."

Firstly, people are allowed to be 'emo' about relationships. It's called being alive.
And god damnit, he has a good bloody excuse. She's an elf. She has to leave for reasons that don't make sense to him. Besides, where the heck was all the crying? They both handled it fairly sternly, I thought, given the situation.

And wasn't all that stuff in the book *anyway*? I mean, there's got to be some reason he's being Strider and not Mr. Kingly Kingson.

[Hero of Legend]

Firstly, people are allowed to be 'emo' about relationships. It's called being alive.

I never said I disliked how Aragorn was portrayed in the movie (although it wasn't exactly overjoyed by it – he was fine as he was in the books). The point was that Jackson did 'mess the story up' as people here like to put it.

And god damnit, he has a good bloody excuse. She's an elf.

Yeah, that's why he made a deal with Elrond to only marry her if he became king of Gondor.

She has to leave for reasons that don't make sense to him.

Eh? She didn't in the book, and Aragorn was raised by elves (and knew his ancestry), so he would've known.

Besides, where the heck was all the crying? They both handled it fairly sternly, I thought, given the situation.

It wasn't the crying that was important. The point was that they both gave up on each other, which definitely didn't happen in the original trilogy.

And wasn't all that stuff in the book *anyway*? I mean, there's got to be some reason he's being Strider and not Mr. Kingly Kingson.

Well, that's because Aragorn is actually the heir to the throne of Arnor, and his family went into hiding when the Witch King destroyed their kingdom. The reason he is also the king of Gondor is that royal line of the southern kingdom ended (also a work of the Witch King) and so he is the only remaining heir to Isildur, and therefore high-king of all western lands in Middle Earth. As for why he didn't reveal his true identity earlier, that's because Elrond made a prophesy that they could not step forth until the Ring was found, at which point Narsil (Andruil) would also be reforged.

Which was another thing that was needlessly changed, by the way.

What? No, I’m not a LoTR nerd!

Edited by Hero of Legend, 02 March 2007 - 03:42 PM.

[spunky-monkey]

Hear ye! Hear ye! The all-knowing prophet hath spoken! What more dost thou hat to say us, oh wise one? Maybe next weeks winning lottery number?

I see... I see... Hero of Legend making an ass of himself again.

[Hero of Legend]

Does that mean you can't see the future?

Maybe, then, you will stop making these obnoxious statements about things you know nothing about?

Nah, who am I kidding.

[Showsni]

I see... I see... Hero of Legend making an ass of himself again.

He is right about Lord of the Rings, though. Still, tone down the sarcasm, HoL.

I still can't get over elves at Helm's Deep... And lack of Erkenbrand. And why was Eomer absent? And what was with... yeah, never mind. He changed quite a lot needlessly. (Frodo in Osgiliath!?? What the...)

[Fyxe]

It's a *film*.

Honestly, no pleasing some people. You should be complaining about Legolas surfing on a shield, or the battle at Helms Deep taking so damn long. Or turning Sauron into an eyeball and cutting him from the final battle and replacing him with an armoured troll. Or Sauruman vanishing from existence.

Or the whole bit at the end at the Shire, but less so for that, we didn't need *another* ending, after all...

Not complaining about changes to the plot arrangement that are, in many respects, necessary for the medium of film.

Edited by Fyxe, 02 March 2007 - 09:20 PM.

[Showsni]

Oh, I have plenty more complaints than the ones I've said. Don't worry about that.

Still, it's okay. For a film. I just prefer books in general.

[Hero of Legend]

I still can't get over elves at Helm's Deep... And lack of Erkenbrand. And why was Eomer absent? And what was with... yeah, never mind. He changed quite a lot needlessly. (Frodo in Osgiliath!?? What the...)

Yeah, that's kinda bad. The Two Towers was probably the generally most messed up of the movies.

Or turning Sauron into an eyeball and cutting him from the final battle and replacing him with an armoured troll.

...Please, tell me you did NOT just say that. Seriously. (Sauron was allways eye, and he didn't play any part in the final battle.)

And for the record, there was a troll in the book, although Pippin took care of that one.

Or Sauruman vanishing from existence.

I did...

Edited by Hero of Legend, 03 March 2007 - 12:55 PM.

[Fyxe]

...Please, tell me you did NOT just say that. Seriously. (Sauron was allways eye, and he didn't play any part in the final battle.)

Sauron was never a physical eye, just a vision of an eye.

Even if he didn't appear in the final battle, I am 100% sure that he had a physical form during the final stages of the book, not a giant eyeball.

[Raien]

If you look at the deleted scenes for Return of the King, there was actually a scene where Sauron in his original human form appeared to fight the heroes in the last onslaught. He appeared more spiritually though.

Edited by jhurvid, 03 March 2007 - 02:48 PM.

[Hero of Legend]

Sauron was never a physical eye, just a vision of an eye.

What's the difference? In the movies he is an eye of flames, in the book he is said to be a naked eye surrounded by flames. Frodo and Sam both see him at the end of the Return of the King, so clearly he had a physical shape.

Even if he didn't appear in the final battle, I am 100% sure that he had a physical form during the final stages of the book, not a giant eyeball.

His powerless spirit appears in the form of a black cloud after the Ring is destroyed, but that's about it. You might be thinking of the Mouth of Sauron, but he's a different guy altogether.

If you look at the deleted scenes for Return of the King, there was actually a scene where Sauron in his original human form appeared to fight the heroes in the last onslaught. He appeared more spiritually though.

That would've been even worse.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 03 March 2007 - 03:04 PM.

[Fyxe]

What's the difference? In the movies he is an eye of flames, in the book he is said to be a naked eye surrounded by flames. Frodo and Sam both see him at the end of the Return of the King, so clearly he had a physical shape.

No. In the book, Gollum met his humanoid form, and states that he had a finger missing on a black clad hand. The eye was a vision. It was never like a giant eyeball lighthouse.

His powerless spirit appears in the form of a black cloud after the Ring is destroyed, but that's about it. You might be thinking of the Mouth of Sauron, but he's a different guy altogether.

No, I'm not thinking of that guy.

That would've been even worse.

He apparently was to appear as a spirit form, taking on an old form from The Silmathingyion or something (as the 'Lord of Gifts'), then quickly revert to his armoured form for the fight.

Wikipedia does have it's uses.

Edited by Fyxe, 03 March 2007 - 03:21 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Sauron was never a physical eye, just a vision of an eye.

Even if he didn't appear in the final battle, I am 100% sure that he had a physical form during the final stages of the book, not a giant eyeball.

He never appeared physically in the book.

[Hero of Legend]

No. In the book, Gollum met his humanoid form, and states that he had a finger missing on a black clad hand. The eye was a vision. It was never like a giant eyeball lighthouse.

That was Gollum speaking of how Sauron lost his ring-finger when Isildur cut it off in the battle on Mount Doom, and how the dark lord would appear if the ring was again returned to him. Gollum never actually met Sauron, as far as we know (and it wouldn’t make any sense if he did). All that is said is that he was tortured in Barad-dûr and was latter released under the promise that he would return again with the Ring.

No, I'm not thinking of that guy.

Well, then you're just wrong.

He apparently was to appear as a spirit form, taking on an old form from The Silmathingyion or something (as the 'Lord of Gifts'), then quickly revert to his armoured form for the fight.

But that form was destroyed along with Nûmenor! He could only appear in his vile form after that. Argh!

Wikipedia does have it's uses.

Hmph. If Wikipedia told you that, then its not much worth.

[Arturo]

*Appears from the shadows*
Isn't this going off-topic a litlle bit too much?

The Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion (or whatever way it is written) doesn't have THAT much to do with Zelda cartoons.

[Duke Serkol]

So was Kirby but SOAP didn't seem to mind

[Fyxe]

Hey, I'm just going on what I've heard, I've never actually, y'know, *read* the books, I'd rather not spend a year of my life doing so. o.o Man, they're big. And indeciferable.

[SOAP]

So was Kirby but SOAP didn't seem to mind

Well Kirby was still a game. I don't know what Lord of the Rings has to do with anything. But I don't think it matters what I think. I don't have any ownership over this thread. I gave that right up by posting it.