If They Did a Baldur's Gate II Movie...

[Jerr Conner]

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 ]

[Q'alooaith]

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.

[Balintherlas]

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.

[Cerek]

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.

[Pirengle]

Originally posted by Balintherlas: [QB] 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.[/qb

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.

[Balintherlas]

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.

[Dundee Slaytern]

Be nice, people.

PS: Jerr, Pirengle is a 'she'.

[Jerr Conner]

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) . 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 ]

[Cerek]

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

Thanks Jerr, 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", Pirengle gave the PERFECT example - STAR WARS. 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 Blues Brothers), 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.

[Nerull]

Originally posted by Cerek: As for the idea of "no-name actors", Pirengle gave the PERFECT example - STAR WARS. Almost NONE of the main characters were "big name" actors or actresses. Han Solo was Harrison Ford's first movie role (IIRC).

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.

Originally posted by Cerek: Carrie Fisher had been in a few movies (most notably the Blues Brothers)

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).

Originally posted by Cerek: 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.

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...