Yeah, at first I thought he was black, but he is just tanned with a deep voice, heh.

And what is wrong with the way Jaheira looks? Kate is very attractive I know but.

--Kestrel--

Whats right with the way Jaheira looks?

J
i
m
m
y

Depends on which portrait you like. I like both her BGI and II portraits, but her BGI is better, IMO.

Yeah, I agree that her BGI portrait is better, but there is nothing wrong with how she looks on the BGII portrait. What are you on about JJJ? [img]tongue.gif[/img]


--Kestrel--

Bah, I just think that Jaheira looks ugly, and so you would want an 'ugly' actress to play her. Someone like Uma Thurman or someone. Not someone who is hot, like Kate Beckinsale, like Balintherlas said!!


J
i
m
m
y

Ugly is subjective.

Well atleast jimmy and me think jaheria's a bit unatractive, but eye of the beholder i guess. In tob when sarevok is seen as a little be he looks black there also. Is there definite proof of his race, cus if he was black wesley snipes would be perfect to play him.

Uma Thurman is ugly? Can I have a hit off of whatever it is you're smoking?

Shes kinda like girl next door hot, not kate beckinsale hot.

Uma Thurman isn't ugly, not in the true sense of the word. She is unusual looking but not ugly. Everybody has their own tastes though I guess.

But lets not into a debate over the most hot looking famous women, heh [img]tongue.gif[/img]


--Kestrel--

Well, we all know that Keira Knightley would win that compotition!

Well, I just think that Kate Beckinsale is far too hot to play Jaheira who is clearly lacking in the looks department. Thats why I think Uma should play her, she isnt exactly 'gorgeous'.

J
i
m
m
y

Again, subjective here. You may think she's lacking but I think she looks good.

But anyway, I still say we should go with an animated series. The story is far too good to condence down to a 2-3 Hour movie. Also, as someone pointed out getting so many high profile actors to work together is not an easy thing.

Who cares if live-action gets a better draw. I'd much rather keep the integrity of the storylines intact.

Would u rather see hot cartoons, or halle berry as viconia sleeping with you?
I saw keira knightly was mentioned in here, who thinks she looks exactly like natalie portman?

Well that doesn't really matter to me as I'm gay, but still, would anyone want to see this done bad? Movies based off of video games hardly do well because of how we view the characters.

And a two-three hour movie isn't enough time to go in-depth with Viconia.

Wasn't the protagonist in the BG1 novel constantly hopping in and out of bed with Jaheira? People watch movies for more than hawt secks, you know. [img]graemlins/1disgust.gif[/img]

Fine. If animation's been given the boot, here's what I want in a BG film:
--No-name actors. Characters actors preferred. I don't want anybody rushing out to see this just because OMG NEKKID HALLE BERRY.
--Limited CGI. If I were in charge, it would be spellcraft only. Maybe a few large nonhumanoid monsters.
--Stick tight to the plot of the original game.

And if this is becoming (or has already become) a debate about which actress is the sexiest, could somebody please find a moderator, lock this thread up with the largest key possible, then start knocking people over the head with said key? This is a game forum--let's game!

Lol true enough!

Well, I am sure that sleeping with Viconia would kill Irenicus! I can see it now...

Viconia: "Come here male and get in this bed!"
PC: "Alright my ebony princess"
*gets into bed*
Irenicus: "Nooo! My attempts to enforce abstinence upon that Bhaal child has failed! There is no longer a point for me to live *dies*

And who says that the PC has to be male? And who says that it has to be Viconia that is romanced? And who says that there should be a romance?

And in answer to your second question; similar. She was hired to play one of Amidala's (Portman's) decoys in the Phantom Menace after all. Now, lets end that type of discussion there and discuss the Topic at hand shall we?


--Kestrel--

[ 02-05-2005, 09:48 AM: Message edited by: Kestrel Daystar ]

PC: Female Human, Sorcerer. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Forget about romance. Just blow things up.

Lol yea!`

Pirengle, no name actors huh, not all big name actors got that way for showing nudity did they, i mean halle bearry did win an oscar? Would you prefer weak inexperienced ones instead?

Sorry if my mention of a sex scene offends anyone but u must realize, it sells.

Also, seeing as how homosexuality is not taboo, why couldnt viconia sleep with a female pc in the movie? [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think the point that he was trying to make was that the integrity of the storyline is what matters [img]smile.gif[/img]

As for myself, I'd rather see something as close to the storyline as possible. And if I wanted to see hot steamy sex, I'd just buy some porn.

Anyway, we should really get off of this discussion. Not that I'm offended I'd just rather keep this thread open and if we continue to discuss whether the movie should have sex or not it'll eventually get closed.

As far as no-name actors, that doesn't mean they're bad. Famous actors can highly disappoint (Ben Affleck in Daredevil).

[ 02-05-2005, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Jerr Conner ]

Personaly I'd do the whole lot in realistic CGI.

But let's examine the plot for a moment.

From the top down isometric view it's not too bad, but get in up close and it can be pretty grusome at times..

Now there are a couple of way's I'd make a BG(or even BG2) movie, the first is a little diffrent, I'd do the whole thing from pysdo first person perspective..

Though I'd be tempted to go a diffrent way, have the first ten or so minutes of the movie in a first person perspective, then switch to "normal" shooting meathods.

Im just trying to look at it realisticly, i think its very possible a bg movie could be made. Huge fan base aside its a great story and right now fantasy is hitting big in the box office. Stil, the point of filming this would be to make money. Therefore the director or producers or whatever would make this to appeal to all audiences, not just fanatic fans. ;) Simply put this means that inclusion of all the side quests would not be possible with a main plot, and they would want as many stars as possible, and forgive me for saying, as great a sex appeal they can add. This doesnt mean saultry love scenes, but certainly skimpy outfits and form fitting clothing.

<font color=plum>Getting back to Irenicus, I saw Con Air again the other day and think that John Maklovich(sp?) would be a good choice to play him. I don't think the Rock has the right look for Irenicus, but he might make a very good choice for Sarevok.

As for "no-name actors" - Hugh Jackman was a relative "unknown" before taking the role of Wolverine in the first X-Men movie. Before that, his biggest acting credits were in the theater play "Oklahoma". Not exactly the type of person you would expect to be able to portray millions of fans favorite little beserker warrior, but Jackman did an outstanding job of capturing Logan's personality and outlook. So a movie can work with "unkowns" - and a movie with this many characters will almost definitely have to limit the number of high-profile names they use.

Again, the X-Men movie is a good example. As far as I know, Halle Berre and Femke (Jean Grey) were the only two veteran film actesses. I believe most of Ian McKellon's experience was also on stage (though he may have been in films I haven't heard of). Same thing for Xavier/Picard (a brain cramp is keeping from remembering his actual name). He had the role of Picard on the STG series and movies, but not much outside of that. And I'm not sure what acting credits the guy who played Cyclops had.

People had fantasized about the cast of the X-Men movie for years (just as we are doing with the BG2 movie now). But once you start suggesting 6-8 top-name, high-profile actors/actresses, you realize that your film budget is already close to 200 million JUST for the main characters salaries alone. I don't care HOW good a film is, they simply can't overcome a budget that big. So they have to go with actors/actesses with less recognition or former films to their credit in order to make the production affordable.</font>

No-name does not mean weak, nor does it mean inexperienced. Maybe it's because I'm looking for qualities that make a timeless film. Star Wars wasn't filled to the brim with hot naked women. The Dark Crystal didn't have whizz-bang special effects. But each film is a classic for a reason; they gave their audiences something never seen before, never done before, and told an effective sci-fi/fantasy story that still holds up 20-30 years after their creation.

But this is like talking to a brick wall. If you want your naked Halle Berry so badly, do some searching on the Internet. I'm done here.

The dark crystal? i dont believe i kno that 1. Jesus in la noche im not obsessed with halle berry or big name actors, but a cast with all new, inexperienced actors would need one or two recognizeable actors to anchor it down.

As for the brick wall coment, il take it as a complement. I try to get my stomach to the same consistency.

Be nice, people. ;)

PS: Jerr, Pirengle is a 'she'.

Lol thanks Dundee.

Balintheras - You do have a point. The film would need at least one Big Name actor. However, that's all it'd need I think, at most two or three. Question is, which character/s?

As far as inexperience, no-name actors doesn't equal inexperience. As Cerek pointed out, Hugh Jackman did a great job as Wolverine despite being a no-name at the time.

Cerek - Ian McKellan had been in a few other films before LOTR and X-Men I think. There's really only one I can remember, which was about a gay director and co-starred Brendan Fraser. However, he was generally not known before X-Men and LOTR so that proves the point that no-name actors can be experienced.

And if it's botherin you, Patrick Stewart is the guy's name (Xavier/Picard) :D . He's been in a lot of made-for-tv movies and was in the Masterminds movie as well.

[ 02-05-2005, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Jerr Conner ]

<font color=plum>Thanks <font color=red>Jerr</font>, it was driving me crazy. I was even going to Google the Star Trek series and movies to find out his name. I HATE it when I can't remember a name that I should know.

As for the idea of "no-name actors", <font color=yellow>Pirengle</font> gave the PERFECT example - <font color=white>STAR WARS</font>. Almost NONE of the main characters were "big name" actors or actresses. Han Solo was Harrison Ford's first movie role (IIRC). Carrie Fisher had been in a few movies (most notably the <font color=dodgerblue>Blues Brothers</font>), but Alec Guinness was the ONLY actor that brought any serious film credentials to the movie. Everybody else was definitely an "unknown" at the time.</font>

Nah, Harrison Ford has been acting in movies since the 1960s. He was in American Graffiti (1973 IIRC). He was already well into the game (just never had his "big break" before that point.

Blues Brothers came out after Star Wars. In fact, I think it came out the same year as the Empire Strikes Back (1980 IIRC). She was an unknown at that point (no real notable film before Star Wars).

Yes, Sir Alec Guiness did bring some solid credentials to the film. Also, though not trotted out like that, was James Earl Jones doing the voicing for Vader. You could do something like that for the film. However, if you are looking to bank and sell the film idea better, then come up with some options to use a more famous lead actor/actress (then tailor the main character/PC to "fit" them better, and work out the party included to fit from there). It's harder to do it with established actors/actresses in supporting roles; it worked for Star Wars, but for every movie that works with that situation there are many more that do not. It is much easier to have a few lines and back up the main actor/actress, and quite another to have to have the most lines (i.e. carry the movie).

Of course, there are some established actors that have done quite well with supporting roles. This is true of Sean Connery, so casting him as Keldorn would be a solid choice (and he has done fantasy/scifi before, so would be less likely to pre-judge and turn down the role). Drew Barrymore has done some solid support work (in my mind, the jury is still out on leading actress roles), so casting her as Nalia would not be bad, either. However, I think the one that you really need to concentrate on is casting Imoen. She is a critical character to the whole project, so you should be casting her and the main character first (along with whichever romance you choose for the main character, if any), then picking the others after that. Honestly, I'm not all that up to date with younger actresses out there, so who would you cast as Imoen? She might be a better choice as a more established actress, especially if you go with unestablished with the main character. Natalie Portman might be pretty good in the role, but other than that I am pulling a blank now...

I cant say that Sir Ian McKellen was a 'no-name actor' at all! He is extremely famous in British Theatre and became a Sir after all for his outstanding contribution to acting. I am a huge Sir Ian McKellen fan, and always have been since I was little (I know im only 16 but I have seen alot of him in plays and productions). He has had such a struggle in his life, what with his descrimination for being homosexual and everything, but I love that he fought of this oppression. He is my favourite actor without doubt.

He is definitely not a no-name actor though! Heh [img]tongue.gif[/img]


--Kestrel--

<font color=plum>Thanks <font color=red>Jerr</font>, it was driving me crazy. I was even going to Google the Star Trek series and movies to find out his name. I HATE it when I can't remember a name that I should know.

As for the idea of "no-name actors", <font color=yellow>Pirengle</font> gave the PERFECT example - <font color=white>STAR WARS</font>. Almost NONE of the main characters were "big name" actors or actresses. Han Solo was Harrison Ford's first movie role (IIRC). Carrie Fisher had been in a few movies (most notably the <font color=dodgerblue>Blues Brothers</font>), but Alec Guinness was the ONLY actor that brought any serious film credentials to the movie. Everybody else was definitely an "unknown" at the time.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]I used to watch a lot of ST: TNG. Stopped around Voyager though. Nice concept but I kept missing episodes. Never saw enterprise.

I cant say that Sir Ian McKellen was a 'no-name actor' at all! He is extremely famous in British Theatre and became a Sir after all for his outstanding contribution to acting. I am a huge Sir Ian McKellen fan, and always have been since I was little (I know im only 16 but I have seen alot of him in plays and productions). He has had such a struggle in his life, what with his descrimination for being homosexual and everything, but I love that he fought of this oppression. He is my favourite actor without doubt.

He is definitely not a no-name actor though! Heh [img]tongue.gif[/img]


--Kestrel-- </font>[/QUOTE]Heh I meant the States, sorry. But I could be wrong.

Hi everyone
this is my first post. It looks like it will be rather lengthy, actually.
So anyways, from what I hear there are actually no movie rights to the BG series/stories, so a movie can't actually be made (currently), is that right? I am a filmmaker. I have always thought 'damn, if I made something as epic as LOTR i'd be pretty damn happy.' The thing was, of course, there was no story epic or involving enough to ever be contemplated for turning into a movie.
Then I thought about Baldur's Gate, and just how amazing the two games were. I have lost myself in the story over, and over, and over. Of course, anybody making a BG movie is rather far off right now.

You'll note I say movie. I don't think an animated/fully cg version would truly do BG justice. Reasons have been outlined by others several times, but I saw nobody mentioned that with animation, you lose the cinematography. With a film, you have a lot to work with. With the right kind of budget, you could truly bring the epic to life. For instance, when walking into Baldur's Gate for the first time after crossing the bridge, what would be more impressive? An animated establishing shot with nicely rendered colours, or an actual, tangible city looming imposingly over the camera? (this could be done with miniatures and building partial sets, re LOTR)
Also, with a proper theatre/telvision sound system you can have amazing music and sound, fully immersing you in Baldur's Gate. We've come to know the series as realistic, it would be unthinkable to change it to something like animation.

Of course one cannot possibly hope to fit any of Baldur's Gate into just one movie. I would say at the very least would be a trilogy, although even then much would be cut out. Perhaps it's true that you could make all the extras for a DVD, but there lacks a certain feel when you watch all the extras on a DVD with a handful of friends, at most.
Then there are other things- where would you end each movie? The first movie? At Sarevok, before sarevok, after sarevok. The second movie?
The problem is, if you follow movie convention, you would need some kind of showdown at the end of the movie or at least a large event. This leaves us stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. Putting one of the main villains into a movie would significantly truncate it and remove possibility for much side quests, banter, just general hanging around. Filling up a movie with just side quests and in betweens would be detrimental to it, for reasons such as the fact that it would not be such a great hit with audiences and cinemagoers (although whether this is true I do not know).

On the subject of new actors, new actors does not necessarily mean unskilled. Of course, experience is invaluable, but if one achieved the right mix, then it would be a perfect balance. Lord of the Rings achieved this mix well. Peter Jackson had Sir Ian and Christopher Lee, two experienced veterans of drama, as well as Orlando Bloom in his first movie, and Elijah Wood, 17 at the time of the first shoot. I definitely do not think filling up a possible Baldur's Gate movie with big name actors is the way to go ,although of course, since we are not casting the movie for real, we have no other actors to talk about. However, if we were really casting, I'd still say no adamantly to having any huge stars (eg Arnold). Oh ok Arnold was a bad example since I do not see him in any role, at all. Although as always, there are exceptions. I quite liked the idea of Anthony Hopkins in a cameo as someone said, as Firkraag or similar. He isn't a huge star but at least people can put a name to the face. Although beyond that I do feel he is malicious, old and grizzled enough for the role.

Oh and also, someone said that the whole cast and crew of LOTR made it work because they all knew and loved the story and fully understood every aspect of their character. Ok not exactly, but more or less, right? Well it's true Christopher Lee had been reading it once every year for the past few decades, and that the conceptual artists had had decades (also) of drawing Tolkien to help bring the vision to life, but there were others who had no knowledge at all. Viggo Mortensen had no idea who Aragorn was, had never read Lord of the Rings- he received a call literally days prior to his first scene on LOTR, knowing nothing whatsoever of the trilogy. I think he did an excellent job and showed incredible dedication, and it's hard to disagree, I should think.

Alright, and the last point (hehe finally) is about the protagonist and his class. How many times have you actually seen in baldur's gate dialogue, 'I'm a fighter/mage.'? Never! What I mean here is that you don't actually need to put the protagonist into a definite class. When people in BG talk about class, they are very generalised- 'I'm a fighter', 'I'm a mage', 'I'm a cleric'. They don't mean so much as their class, but rather what they do (hope that makes sense). The protagonist, in my opinion, should be a fighter mage thief. I mean, what's to stop him learning from some mage in the course of the movie? He could pick up a cantrip or two. Or maybe he could become supremely skilled in magic. And of course there is always a chance for stealth in a movie, and being the hero, of course he'll succeed. The final thing, then, is his/her ability as a fighter. The main character must be a good fighter. Not only would it be feasible that anybody could learn to fight well (I don't see 'weapon proficiencies' really making it into a movie, sorry), the concept of a finesse fighter (eg Aragorn) allows the greatest potential for plot and character development. Nobody will like a hero who has to hide behind the big fighters in his party, nor will anybody like a big, muscle bound, not-exactly-charming hero (unless it's that kinda movie, eg Conan, which it isn't). What we need in terms of a hero for a movie like Baldur's Gate is someone who is charming, who is skilled in fighting, who has stealth when in need, who can cast spells so that he isn't missing out on a huge part of the world, who is funny, sarcastic, witty, noble, honourable, courageous. Yes, people can say 'Well let's defy the norms, it's been done before- tragic heroes and whatnot', but truly, that would not be the stuff of legend. Besides, we have a whole party of people, you can put in whatever you want! Oh and please don't say we are limited to 6 people... come on, that's just silly.

Well that's my two cents.
Hehe, sorry, I know that doesn't sound right at all.
Thanks for reading such a long post.

<font color=plum>Heya <font color=yellow>Reagent</font>. [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] <font color=orange>Welcome to Ironworks !!!</font>

I agree that a live-action movie would be much more epic and exciting than animation or CG, but I'm not sure Baldur's Gate really has a large enough following to warrant that. LOTR has been around for over 30 years. Many of the fans read the books for the first time in high school and now have kids of their own old enough to enjoy the books (and perhaps even grandkids old enough). Baldur's Gate may be the best CRPG ever made, but it is still very strongly connected to AD&D - which often suffers from a negative public image (at least in America). LOTR pre-dates AD&D, so while there were similarities drawn, it could honostly be said that LOTR was not a derivative of AD&D.

But the bottom line is the fan base. LOTR finally moved the fantasy genre of movies from a specialty niche into the mainstream. Many people went to see LOTR who weren't really big fans of other fantasy movies.

Two other factors that really helped LOTR succeed was the incredible amount of detail that Tolkien included in the book (Peter Jackson commented during the filming that the costumes were easy to make because Tolkien had described all of them in exact detail - down to the embroidery on the elven clothing) and the fact that the storyline is already laid out in a very precise sequence of events.

Baldur's Gate is much more open-ended. BG1 is relatively straightforward, but BG2 has a plethora of side-quests. Some members do all the side-quests before going to rescue Imoen, others feel they must leave for Spellhold as soon as they have enough gold for passage, and still others completely ignore some of the side-quests. So it would be very difficult to choose a storyline that all the fans would agree with. In LOTR, on the other hand, the only disagreement fans had were with some changes made to scenes (such as Faramir taking Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath - which never happened in the book) and scenes that were cut from the movie or never included to begin with (Tom Bombadil was the one mentioned most often). At least Peter Jackson could say, "Well, we had to simply leave some scenes out to keep each movie from being 6-8 hours long. He was also able to add several of the scenes into the extended DVD sets of the movies, so fans did eventually get to see some of their favorite scenes that were cut from the theatrical version.

One possible compromise I though of for the BG2 movie WAS to do a completely CG version. Dreamworks did an incredible job on the Shrek movies. While the human characters don't look as real as they could, the animators were still able to include extremely realistic facial expressions and body movements. It isn't a perfect solution, but it would eliminate the argument over which actors/actresses should play which character - and whether or not the voices sound right. With a CGI movie, each character would look exactly as they do in the game and the same voices could be used - so there would be much more continuity between the movie and the game.

I agree that live-action would still be the best - I'm just not sure it's feasible. Then again, games-converted-to-movies ARE becoming more popular. Perhaps if Alone in the Dark does well, the idea of doing a live BG movie might be more realistic.</font>

I still think it'd do great as an animation show. Animation excites me as much as live-action.

Thanks Cerek:)

Yeah it's true, AD&D doesn't have a good image. I think a movie like this could change that.

Regarding the fan base, BG definitely doesn't have as much of a following. I think, though, with awesome marketing and hype, you could generate incredible interest (just be sure not to blow it with a bad movie).

I think with the help of BG's original writers, a good script could be put out. They were able to write an incredible story, filled with great wit and humour. Admittedly, while the dialogue is perfect for a game, it doesn't flow like real conversation, which would be the only reason for not having them write the script for the movie. However, their wit, sense of humour and creative minds are unsurpassed, so I think with a good team like that you could easily make an amazing story perfect for the big screen. I mean, a lot of people who saw LOTR didn't actually know that Tolkien was meticulous in his attention to detail, did they... they just went 'well, it's a gigantic movie, i better see it'. And then they loved it.

The LOTR team kept telling us how Tom Bombadil just wasn't epic enough for their movie. It's true- LOTR was all about battles of tens of thousands, chases across sweeping plains, ancient halls of kings carved into mountains (damn, i'm gonna have to watch it again...). While Baldur's Gate has things like that, I'm sure people wouldn't mind, for instance, if we included the Beholder guarding Sekolah's tooth in the sahuagin city (if we visit it at all, which I think we should, just for the beholder, cos he is a FUNNY GUY geez). Besides, it's part of the plot. If the beholder wasn't a good sport and let Hero get the tooth, Hero couldn't have seen the prince, and couldn't have gotten out of the City-of-Caverns to the Underdark. If Hero (from hereon known as Charname) just killed the Beholder, well, I'd feel sad :( . And god knows we have enough movies with just killing everything. The Baldur's Gate games are full of humour and wit.

And I don't think fans would have too much problem with stuff like the wait for Spellhold. The hero would probably rush off for Imoen straight away or something, but that doesn't mean the sidequests couldn't be on the way, or come later, etc etc.

About the CG, I wonder if by the time a BG movie can be made, technology would be even better? Until then, my vote will always be for liveaction. CG would again narrow down the people who would see a BG movie (though as I said, good marketing would take care of that problem).

And also, could someone please tell me how old Jim Cummings (Minsc) is? The only problem with live action is that if we didn't get Jim to do Minsc's voice, Minsc would not be Minsc. If Jim is too old to train up and shave and turn into Minsc, he could dub the actor's voice, but unless that actor was amazing and could be Minsc like Jim has been for the past few years, it wouldn't work. So yes that's the only problem I see with live action. No Minsc, and everyone knows and loves Minsc...

(edit: And Boo! I FORGOT Boo!)

[ 02-11-2005, 01:59 AM: Message edited by: Reagent ]

Mr Reagent it seems the class you discribed in your 1st post to be a bard