And I'm not really what you mean by "reasons that weren't fully explained", it was a battle in a war. You know, in real life.
Well, to be fair, the real Battle of Thermopoly (I'm not even trying to spell it right) went down considerably differently than the 300 version.
The reason was pretty much the same though "stop the persians"
I will see this movie because I love Diablo. I think it has potential to be entertaining at least. Like others have said, the story is okay, and the potential for violence is nice and high.
A Diablo movie staying absolutely true to the source material would be worse than a Uwe Boll-written and directed monstrosity. I cannot think of anything worse than a movie that features some guy running into a dungeon, running back to town to sell stuff, running deeper into the dungeon, running back into town to sell stuff, running even deeper into...
Well you get the idea. That would not make a successful film. Or a good one.
What would be good, though, would be a dark, serious horror flick akin to the Dungeons & Dragons movie, but with less color, good actors, and good followthrough. As far as I'm concerned, aside from ambience, the basic premise is good. Diablo comes up from hell and starts fucking around underground and some adventurer(s) need to go in and wack him. As long as they keep Diablo himself, it'll be decent.
Are we thinking of the same Dungeons and Dragons movie?
Is there another one?
Didn't they make a sequel? That's the one I'm talking about though. Note, I said a movie in the same vein, but one that is actually good. That movie sucked.
Guys I think the best way to make a Diablo movie would be to take Diablo II's approach where a guy is basically recounting incredible stories from his old days about how he and his friends journeyed around the world fighting and outsmarting various evils in creative ways. And in between each tale many years pass and things change etc...
A Diablo movie staying absolutely true to the source material would be worse than a Uwe Boll-written and directed monstrosity. I cannot think of anything worse than a movie that features some guy running into a dungeon, running back to town to sell stuff, running deeper into the dungeon, running back into town to sell stuff, running even deeper into...
Well you get the idea. That would not make a successful film. Or a good one.
What would be good, though, would be a dark, serious horror flick akin to the Dungeons & Dragons movie, but with less color, good actors, and good followthrough. As far as I'm concerned, aside from ambience, the basic premise is good. Diablo comes up from hell and starts fucking around underground and some adventurer(s) need to go in and wack him. As long as they keep Diablo himself, it'll be decent.
Are we thinking of the same Dungeons and Dragons movie?
Is there another one?
Didn't they make a sequel? That's the one I'm talking about though. Note, I said a movie in the same vein, but one that is actually good. That movie sucked.
There was nothing even remotely dark or serious about that movie. Its genre was something like "light-hearted adventure", not horror.
really they could just do it about the fall of king leoric. second movie is the first hero killing leoric, then diablo. 3rd movie is diablo 2. 4th is throne of baal. 5th is diablo 3. BAM ALL OF A SUDDEN IVE MADE 1.2 BILLION DOLLARS IN TICKET SALES
Also guys, what was the ending to the Dungeons and Dragons movie? Did it turn out to really be just a game and then the camera zoomed out from the little figures on a gameboard or something?
Also guys, what was the ending to the Dungeons and Dragons movie? Did it turn out to really be just a game and then the camera zoomed out from the little figures on a gameboard or something?
All the actors woke up and THEIR CAREERS WERE RUINED.
The End.
FireWeasel on
AC:CL Wii -- 3824-2125-9336 City: Felinito Me: Nick
Also guys, what was the ending to the Dungeons and Dragons movie? Did it turn out to really be just a game and then the camera zoomed out from the little figures on a gameboard or something?
All the actors woke up and THEIR CAREERS WERE RUINED.
From the sound of the article, it'll probably just be 300 with demons. Same company, after all. Two hours of angry men yelling and killing each other for reasons that weren't fully explained.
Okay, right. Since all of Legendary's films are the same. Lady in the water? Batman Begins? Totally the same as 300. This must be the same, too.
And I'm not really what you mean by "reasons that weren't fully explained", it was a battle in a war. You know, in real life.
i'll be honest here, though. I'd pay to see '300 with demons', and pay hard.
OP is silly because he assumes the story of the movie will actually resemble the game's story even remotely. Ha ha, silly goose, of course Hollywood is going to kill the essence of the games, have sex with the remains, set them on fire, chuck them in a blender and voila: A videogame movie is born!
You'd prefer it if they stuck to the three sentences of plot that Diablo has? Hell, the little flavor manuals of Diablo have more plot in 'em than the game does.
I _hate_ seeing people say this sort of thing. I have to ask if you even stopped clicking for a moment to read any of the books in the first Diablo or the dialogue in Diablo II. Did the cut scenes pop up between acts? Did you talk to anyone in town? Sure the story could have been fleshed out a bit more, but from the looks of things they did too much work in that direction since a huge swath of their audience didn't even notice.
A Diablo movie staying absolutely true to the source material would be worse than a Uwe Boll-written and directed monstrosity. I cannot think of anything worse than a movie that features some guy running into a dungeon, running back to town to sell stuff, running deeper into the dungeon, running back into town to sell stuff, running even deeper into...
Well you get the idea. That would not make a successful film. Or a good one.
What would be good, though, would be a dark, serious horror flick akin to the Dungeons & Dragons movie, but with less color, good actors, and good followthrough. As far as I'm concerned, aside from ambience, the basic premise is good. Diablo comes up from hell and starts fucking around underground and some adventurer(s) need to go in and wack him. As long as they keep Diablo himself, it'll be decent.
Are we thinking of the same Dungeons and Dragons movie?
Is there another one?
Didn't they make a sequel? That's the one I'm talking about though. Note, I said a movie in the same vein, but one that is actually good. That movie sucked.
There was nothing even remotely dark or serious about that movie. Its genre was something like "light-hearted adventure", not horror.
Perhaps I punctuated or phrased my post improperly. I'm saying that the Diablo movie could be like the D&D movie in structure, but it should be darker. A lot darker. And it should have good actors and less color.
Diablo/Diablo 2 had way more lore/story in their menu than the actual games. But that's to be expected from the mother of all hack and slash games. Most of the story involve the quest giver telling you how there is this guy somewhere in the wilderness who is bad and need to die, then send you on your way to kill him.
I would prefer them make a movie based on diablo 2, and just show a band of heroes fighting their way through a bunch of locations to get to diablo in hell, while leaving incalculable amount of dead demon bodies behind them.
Also, they must include a few insider jokes like soj, cow level, or whatever.
notagame on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited June 2007
Shit, the little books they had int he dungeons that mentioned the sin war? The voice actor for those was excellent and so was the buildup of the story if you read all of them and did all the quests and listened to everybody. By the time you got to diablo, you knew exactly why he was someone to fear. The only game that topped the whole chasing after the bad guy oh fuck there he is shit hes huge I'm going to die feel was diablo 2.
Not even death can save you from me!
edit: You no story dudes need to actually go play through these games again and read the quests all the way through. The characters giving the quests and the completion of most of them explain how the situations came to pass, what they feel about it, and link it all back to diablo's passing. Those events wouldn't have happened were it not for diablo himself, and given only the information within the game themselves, you can construct the links that lead all the way up to the final confrontation in a logical manner. About the only thing I can think of that doesn't work directly is the sand viper temple.
You just have to, you know, not click the button to stop the text before dashing off to the next town portal.
Also in d2, every quest, before you complete it, you could go and talk to every single person in the town and they'd give you their opinion on it, or a bit of backstory, or events that led up to it. Most of Cains backstories were very deep, as were the extra bits for some of the random "wise guy" characters. Shit cain details the entire story of the capturing of Baal within the game.
You had to hit talk then click on the quests. I guess this was too much work?
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Is it wrong that I only want to see a sequence where Tyrael beats the crap(or tries) out of Diablo? I kind of wish Blizzard would just make their own movie in house. I mean, if it was two hours of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XarsDg46FTQ
then count me in.
OP is silly because he assumes the story of the movie will actually resemble the game's story even remotely. Ha ha, silly goose, of course Hollywood is going to kill the essence of the games, have sex with the remains, set them on fire, chuck them in a blender and voila: A videogame movie is born!
You'd prefer it if they stuck to the three sentences of plot that Diablo has? Hell, the little flavor manuals of Diablo have more plot in 'em than the game does.
I _hate_ seeing people say this sort of thing. I have to ask if you even stopped clicking for a moment to read any of the books in the first Diablo or the dialogue in Diablo II. Did the cut scenes pop up between acts? Did you talk to anyone in town? Sure the story could have been fleshed out a bit more, but from the looks of things they did too much work in that direction since a huge swath of their audience didn't even notice.
Me too. The characters in both the games, but especially Deckard Cain really tied the story together well.
Dominic Dragon on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
OP is silly because he assumes the story of the movie will actually resemble the game's story even remotely. Ha ha, silly goose, of course Hollywood is going to kill the essence of the games, have sex with the remains, set them on fire, chuck them in a blender and voila: A videogame movie is born!
You'd prefer it if they stuck to the three sentences of plot that Diablo has? Hell, the little flavor manuals of Diablo have more plot in 'em than the game does.
I _hate_ seeing people say this sort of thing. I have to ask if you even stopped clicking for a moment to read any of the books in the first Diablo or the dialogue in Diablo II. Did the cut scenes pop up between acts? Did you talk to anyone in town? Sure the story could have been fleshed out a bit more, but from the looks of things they did too much work in that direction since a huge swath of their audience didn't even notice.
Me too. The characters in both the games, but especially Deckard Cain really tied the story together well.
Stay awhile and listen!
I listened...
Selfish bastards the lot of you.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Is it wrong that I only want to see a sequence where Tyrael beats the crap(or tries) out of Diablo? I kind of wish Blizzard would just make their own movie in house. I mean, if it was two hours of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XarsDg46FTQ
then count me in.
That was my favorite one too. I've watched it more than once as well.
I'm really partial to that one where all the Prime Evils are sitting around and Diablo departs into Hell, too.
From the sound of the article, it'll probably just be 300 with demons. Same company, after all. Two hours of angry men yelling and killing each other for reasons that weren't fully explained.
Okay, right. Since all of Legendary's films are the same. Lady in the water? Batman Begins? Totally the same as 300. This must be the same, too.
And I'm not really what you mean by "reasons that weren't fully explained", it was a battle in a war. You know, in real life.
i'll be honest here, though. I'd pay to see '300 with demons', and pay hard.
Does this involve charging the theater and slamming your fist, grasping a 10€ bill for the ticket, through the god-damned wall?
Spend 15 minutes explaining the backstory, LOTR-style.
Introduce a Warrior coming back home to Tristram and finding it in ruins, resolving to solve the problem.
He heads down the cathedral, meets a Rogue and a Sorcerer somewhere along the way.
Insert 90 minutes of monster-killing and equipment-finding, with probably a lot of the warrior dude hitting on the rogue for comic relief.
Then they kill the Archbishop Lazarus.
Then they kill Diablo.
Then the warrior puts the soulstone in his face, the two companions die or leave or something. The end.
It's not hard to make a Diablo movie not suck. But Hollywood has a history of surprising me in that department.
Doesn't the Rogue become the first boss in Diablo 2, in the Cemetary, and the Mage becomes the boss of that weird arcane zone?
What? No. Whoever your character was, they're the ones that had the brilliant idea of smashing Diablo's soulstone into their face.
Andariel was a lesser evil (same with Duriel) and the wizard in the Sanctuary was an imposter of Horazon, who created the whole place.
I just always wondered who thought smashing a sharp, pointy rock that just happens to contain the soul of one of the most powerful demons ever into their face was a good idea? I mean, at the very least it's sharp and pointy and the thing would stab into your brain and kill you, not to mention you being tormented by Diablo for all eternity.
Spend 15 minutes explaining the backstory, LOTR-style.
Introduce a Warrior coming back home to Tristram and finding it in ruins, resolving to solve the problem.
He heads down the cathedral, meets a Rogue and a Sorcerer somewhere along the way.
Insert 90 minutes of monster-killing and equipment-finding, with probably a lot of the warrior dude hitting on the rogue for comic relief.
Then they kill the Archbishop Lazarus.
Then they kill Diablo.
Then the warrior puts the soulstone in his face, the two companions die or leave or something. The end.
It's not hard to make a Diablo movie not suck. But Hollywood has a history of surprising me in that department.
Doesn't the Rogue become the first boss in Diablo 2, in the Cemetary, and the Mage becomes the boss of that weird arcane zone?
What? No. Whoever your character was, they're the ones that had the brilliant idea of smashing Diablo's soulstone into their face.
Andariel was a lesser evil (same with Duriel) and the wizard in the Sanctuary was an imposter of Horazon, who created the whole place.
I just always wondered who thought smashing a sharp, pointy rock that just happens to contain the soul of one of the most powerful demons ever into their face was a good idea? I mean, at the very least it's sharp and pointy and the thing would stab into your brain and kill you, not to mention you being tormented by Diablo for all eternity.
I believe the reasoning was that you basically descended into insanity as you approached Diablo's lair, to the point where, in the end, you believed (or Diablo convinced you?) that the only way to truly defeat Diablo was to suppress the soulstone within yourself.
What? No. Whoever your character was, they're the ones that had the brilliant idea of smashing Diablo's soulstone into their face.
Andariel was a lesser evil (same with Duriel) and the wizard in the Sanctuary was an imposter of Horazon, who created the whole place.
Actually, according to town NPCs in their respective chapters, Diablo's Rogue became Blood Raven and The Summoner is an insane Vizjerei mage who supposedly fought Diablo at Tristram.
The Warrior became the Wanderer after arrogantly trying to contain Diablo's soul in his body. I figure he stood over the corpse thinking "well hey, he can't be that tough; I just kicked the shit out of him. Better make sure nobody gets their hands on this." *FOREHEAD* OW OW OW
Spend 15 minutes explaining the backstory, LOTR-style.
Introduce a Warrior coming back home to Tristram and finding it in ruins, resolving to solve the problem.
He heads down the cathedral, meets a Rogue and a Sorcerer somewhere along the way.
Insert 90 minutes of monster-killing and equipment-finding, with probably a lot of the warrior dude hitting on the rogue for comic relief.
Then they kill the Archbishop Lazarus.
Then they kill Diablo.
Then the warrior puts the soulstone in his face, the two companions die or leave or something. The end.
It's not hard to make a Diablo movie not suck. But Hollywood has a history of surprising me in that department.
Doesn't the Rogue become the first boss in Diablo 2, in the Cemetary, and the Mage becomes the boss of that weird arcane zone?
What? No. Whoever your character was, they're the ones that had the brilliant idea of smashing Diablo's soulstone into their face.
Andariel was a lesser evil (same with Duriel) and the wizard in the Sanctuary was an imposter of Horazon, who created the whole place.
* According to Diablo II, the canon hero who defeated Diablo in Tristram was a Warrior: the wander="Wikipedia"]er who is possessed by the Lord of Terror is clearly a man, ruling out the Rogue. His skin is pale, implying he is not the dark-skinned Sorcerer, and in the opening cutscene, the wanderer leans on a sword, the weapon most closely associated with the Warrior.
* Blood Raven (the corrupted Rogue from the first act of Diablo II) was evidently the Rogue in the first Diablo game. Akara and Charsi say that Blood Raven was a rogue captain at Tristram, battling Diablo. They say she returned unlike before, bringing an evil influence. Shortly thereafter, Andariel's uprising in the west began and Blood Raven began raising the dead.
* The Summoner, the corrupted Mage from the Second Act that was impersonating Horazon, was evidently the Sorcerer in the first Diablo game. Jerhyn and Drognan speak of a near-insane Vizjerei mage who arrived in Lut Gholein (presumably seeking Horazon's sanctuary) claiming to have fought against Diablo in Tristram, suggesting that mage became the Summoner. The Summoner is also dark skinned, like the dark-skinned Sorcerer in the original Diablo.
What? No. Whoever your character was, they're the ones that had the brilliant idea of smashing Diablo's soulstone into their face.
Andariel was a lesser evil (same with Duriel) and the wizard in the Sanctuary was an imposter of Horazon, who created the whole place.
Actually, according to town NPCs in their respective chapters, Diablo's Rogue became Blood Raven and The Summoner is an insane Vizjerei mage who supposedly fought Diablo at Tristram.
The Warrior became the Wanderer after arrogantly trying to contain Diablo's soul in his body. I figure he stood over the corpse thinking "well hey, he can't be that tough; I just kicked the shit out of him. Better make sure nobody gets their hands on this." *FOREHEAD* OW OW OW
Oh damn, Blood Raven? I read "first boss" and thought Andariel, who was the first ACT boss. Oops. Then I just dismissed the rest out of hand.
[edit]Stupidity preserved at the top of the page for posterity. YES!
What? No. Whoever your character was, they're the ones that had the brilliant idea of smashing Diablo's soulstone into their face.
Andariel was a lesser evil (same with Duriel) and the wizard in the Sanctuary was an imposter of Horazon, who created the whole place.
Actually, according to town NPCs in their respective chapters, Diablo's Rogue became Blood Raven and The Summoner is an insane Vizjerei mage who supposedly fought Diablo at Tristram.
The Warrior became the Wanderer after arrogantly trying to contain Diablo's soul in his body. I figure he stood over the corpse thinking "well hey, he can't be that tough; I just kicked the shit out of him. Better make sure nobody gets their hands on this." *FOREHEAD* OW OW OW
Not just arrogance. The shard of the soul stone that was left wasn't enough to contain Diablo. Something had to be done to prevent him escaping into the mortal world.
From the sound of the article, it'll probably just be 300 with demons. Same company, after all. Two hours of angry men yelling and killing each other for reasons that weren't fully explained.
I like my storylines and all, but I can get behind a movie that exists for pure, undiluted violence every now and then.
Edit: What's the most recent word on the Warcraft movie, anyway? I haven't heard boo from Blizzard or anybody since they posted it on the WoW homepage last year. Was that Legendary Pictures, too?
So they're sticking with the source material to the letter then..
Posts
The reason was pretty much the same though "stop the persians"
I will see this movie because I love Diablo. I think it has potential to be entertaining at least. Like others have said, the story is okay, and the potential for violence is nice and high.
Didn't they make a sequel? That's the one I'm talking about though. Note, I said a movie in the same vein, but one that is actually good. That movie sucked.
All the actors woke up and THEIR CAREERS WERE RUINED.
The End.
hey guy what the fuck was that?
i'll be honest here, though. I'd pay to see '300 with demons', and pay hard.
I _hate_ seeing people say this sort of thing. I have to ask if you even stopped clicking for a moment to read any of the books in the first Diablo or the dialogue in Diablo II. Did the cut scenes pop up between acts? Did you talk to anyone in town? Sure the story could have been fleshed out a bit more, but from the looks of things they did too much work in that direction since a huge swath of their audience didn't even notice.
0431-6094-6446-7088
Perhaps I punctuated or phrased my post improperly. I'm saying that the Diablo movie could be like the D&D movie in structure, but it should be darker. A lot darker. And it should have good actors and less color.
I would prefer them make a movie based on diablo 2, and just show a band of heroes fighting their way through a bunch of locations to get to diablo in hell, while leaving incalculable amount of dead demon bodies behind them.
Also, they must include a few insider jokes like soj, cow level, or whatever.
Not even death can save you from me!
edit: You no story dudes need to actually go play through these games again and read the quests all the way through. The characters giving the quests and the completion of most of them explain how the situations came to pass, what they feel about it, and link it all back to diablo's passing. Those events wouldn't have happened were it not for diablo himself, and given only the information within the game themselves, you can construct the links that lead all the way up to the final confrontation in a logical manner. About the only thing I can think of that doesn't work directly is the sand viper temple.
You just have to, you know, not click the button to stop the text before dashing off to the next town portal.
Also in d2, every quest, before you complete it, you could go and talk to every single person in the town and they'd give you their opinion on it, or a bit of backstory, or events that led up to it. Most of Cains backstories were very deep, as were the extra bits for some of the random "wise guy" characters. Shit cain details the entire story of the capturing of Baal within the game.
You had to hit talk then click on the quests. I guess this was too much work?
then count me in.
Me too. The characters in both the games, but especially Deckard Cain really tied the story together well.
Stay awhile and listen!
I listened...
Selfish bastards the lot of you.
That was my favorite one too. I've watched it more than once as well.
I'm really partial to that one where all the Prime Evils are sitting around and Diablo departs into Hell, too.
They NEED to have game starring Tyrael. He just looks so awesome.
Oh God, I didn't even think about that.
I sure as hell don't think they could do that!
...They'll probably call them 'aliens'.
Spend 15 minutes explaining the backstory, LOTR-style.
Introduce a Warrior coming back home to Tristram and finding it in ruins, resolving to solve the problem.
He heads down the cathedral, meets a Rogue and a Sorcerer somewhere along the way.
Insert 90 minutes of monster-killing and equipment-finding, with probably a lot of the warrior dude hitting on the rogue for comic relief.
Then they kill the Archbishop Lazarus.
Then they kill Diablo.
Then the warrior puts the soulstone in his face, the two companions die or leave or something. The end.
It's not hard to make a Diablo movie not suck. But Hollywood has a history of surprising me in that department.
The fucker comes back to life... you remember that, right?
It was like a kick right to the happy parts.
Also
Doesn't the Rogue become the first boss in Diablo 2, in the Cemetary, and the Mage becomes the boss of that weird arcane zone?
...I think.
This and the Warcraft Film are definately capitalising on the popularity of both series.
Tumblr
If that is the case. I'd pay hard too.
What? No. Whoever your character was, they're the ones that had the brilliant idea of smashing Diablo's soulstone into their face.
Andariel was a lesser evil (same with Duriel) and the wizard in the Sanctuary was an imposter of Horazon, who created the whole place.
I just always wondered who thought smashing a sharp, pointy rock that just happens to contain the soul of one of the most powerful demons ever into their face was a good idea? I mean, at the very least it's sharp and pointy and the thing would stab into your brain and kill you, not to mention you being tormented by Diablo for all eternity.
I believe the reasoning was that you basically descended into insanity as you approached Diablo's lair, to the point where, in the end, you believed (or Diablo convinced you?) that the only way to truly defeat Diablo was to suppress the soulstone within yourself.
The Warrior became the Wanderer after arrogantly trying to contain Diablo's soul in his body. I figure he stood over the corpse thinking "well hey, he can't be that tough; I just kicked the shit out of him. Better make sure nobody gets their hands on this." *FOREHEAD* OW OW OW
Oh damn, Blood Raven? I read "first boss" and thought Andariel, who was the first ACT boss. Oops. Then I just dismissed the rest out of hand.
[edit]Stupidity preserved at the top of the page for posterity. YES!
Not just arrogance. The shard of the soul stone that was left wasn't enough to contain Diablo. Something had to be done to prevent him escaping into the mortal world.
0431-6094-6446-7088
So they're sticking with the source material to the letter then..