Coulda sworn there was already a thread for this, but I can't seem to find it.
If there was a Pathfinder movie, I'd want it to be animated. And made by either Pixar, Dreamworks or something involving Tim Burton. C'mon, the goblins are practically made to be animated! Sure, might be hard to translate things like the Sinspawn into a kids' movie, but I bet one could work around it.
What sort of movie would you want to see?
I'd argue that the Sinspawn could fit just fine. After all, Animated doesn't always equal kids' movie. Or, at least, shouldn't.
Besides, there isn't much about the Sinspawn visually that makes them anything but freaky monsters, which kids LOVE.
Ogres, though... I'm not sure how you'd incorporate those guys. o_O
What sort of movie would you want to see?
Something with fey, a la the weirder parts of Kingmaker. Go full on Alice in Wonderland crazy.
As for what I'd personally want out of it, I know that I'd much prefer a wholly original story starring the iconics (ala the comic) as opposed to an adaptation of an AP.
Main reason being that Adventure Paths don't really fit the movie format. They're much more suited to, say, a miniseries than a movie.
I'd argue that the Sinspawn could fit just fine. After all, Animated doesn't always equal kids' movie. Or, at least, shouldn't.
Yes, but Dreamworks/Pixar make kids' movies. :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well in the case of an animated Pathfinder movie I would love to see Don Bluth as the director or maybe Hayao Miyazaki cause his works are totally awesome.
As for story, I agree original is best but if it was to be an AP I would probably say Jade Regent, the whole harshness of travel work so well in animated movies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, Jade Regent would work great as a sequel, too. I think Burnt Offerings's story about handling the goblins and errant aasimar would make a pretty decent movie, just like it made a decent play.
I don't know that Pathfinder would really work as an anime, but Don Bluth would be awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please not Tim Burton. I'd rather have Guillermo del Toro conceive and direct it.
Wow, dissing Tim Burton? Blasphemy!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of, no Tim Burton anywhere near my Pathfinder. Second, i wouldn't want it to be a kid's movie. I hate when adult content has to be kiddied down. I want sinspawn, lovecraftian horrors, worst things that ever came to mind to the devs on the big screen.
Yeah, Guillermo Del Toro would be awesome.
Burton just makes the same movie over and over, it is wonky and "different" and it stars Johny Depp, who I am personally sick of. Also it is no longer either wonky or different. As all of his movies are like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't realize this was the "Bash Tim Burton" thread.
Oh, wait, it's not. ;P
I'd appreciate it if we could keep our posts restricted to things we'd like to see, rather than things others suggested which we hate. This is supposed to be a wishlist, not a debate. I said Tim Burton could be cool. So could Henry Selick, for that matter. I didn't say that so people could tell me my opinions are wrong.
I think it'd be nice to see a mix of high-level and low-level--one of the big failings of the D&D movie (one of them) was that the only dungeon featured was shoehorned and a ripoff of Indiana Jones. Golarion's got a ton of ruins to explore, so it seems fitting to show some off.
I don't hate Tim Burton. I just think that his style is utterly unsuited for this setting.
Spelljammer would work for him. It's suitably wacky.
Of course, I think Joss Whedon could also do really well at this setting. Maybe him and Don Bluth in a Titan A.E.-style collaboration.
I'd watch it.
Could Joss Whedon collaborate with Guillermo del Toro, or would there be a fatal clash of the egos?
I love the ruins idea; as an anthro major, I love ruins, the creepier the better (at least, when I'm not the one excavating them).
Am I the only one who would prefer a live action/motion capture hybrid?
Am I the only one who would prefer a live action/motion capture hybrid?
Not at all. Put James Cameron or Ridley Scott in charge, give him a really good screenplay, an even better budget, and stick him together with the best folks at ILM (I live nearby, so I'll toss in a pitch).
So, who writes the screenplay?
I would just like to point out a common misconception.
I'd argue that the Sinspawn could fit just fine. After all, Animated doesn't always equal kids' movie. Or, at least, shouldn't.Yes, but Dreamworks/Pixar make kids' movies. :P
Dreamworks* does (sort of), but Pixar (usually) does not. I know, I know. It's easy to be fooled by the bright colors, kid-friendly side kicks (as opposed to protagonists**) and use of clean language and characters. But (most of) the Pixar movies are some of the most mature, adult pieces written today. It's okay. Most people are. I was until fairly recently :)
1) The story that was crafted as a pure nostalgia letter to the purity of nostalgia combined with the themes of an aging population who no longer feels needed or necessary, as they're outdated by the newer, "younger" generation. Revisited three times, and increasingly dark and more moving each time. Also, the power of friendship.
2) ... okay, I'll give you this one. It's pretty much a simple morality play. Also, the power of friendship.
3) The story focusing around two working-class midlife guys who learn the ins and outs of racism, fight an evil corporate agenda that they would have previously been fully party to (before having their racism exposed as empty and cruel to them), and [insert the family-friendly ending here]. Also, the power of friendship.
3-2) I dunno, I haven't seen it, yet, though I wish I'd had the ability to.
4) The story of a single father (with no real survival capabilities) who watched his wife killed, lost most of his children to the same killer while he was helpless to do anything, and who's last living son is kidnapped, lost in a wilderness devoted to killing him. It focuses on the themes of loneliness, depression, loss, and what it means to be a parent (especially a single parent) in a frightening changing world that really doesn't care about you. Also, the power of friendship.
5) The story of the man who, forced into a job he hates, for little pay that actively inhibits his desire to help others, undergoes a midlife crisis. Eventually, he learns that more than anything else, he needs to love his family and take care of them first. Themes include the potential for (and presumption of) marital infidelity, mid-life crises, parental responsibility, and the proper (and improper) response (and responsibility) of society and individuals within that society to having people work on their passions and toward their talents, as well as bitterness and attempted child-murder. Also, the power of friendship (though it's substantially less important in this one - mostly this one replaces that with the power of familial love).
6) The one about the small town who, due to economic and social pressure and change, is slowly dying out because of a road bypass. It includes themes of respecting those older than you; the shallowness of the love of money; the emptiness of idolizing "winners" or "the famous", and passing judgment based on "money", "education", or "location"); the need to act as a community (and the loneliness and emptiness that can come if you do not), and how hard work and dedication can benefit both you and your community. Also about the importance of enjoying life and of small towns. Also, the power of friendship.
- 6-2) Okay, this one was kind of a kids movie. But many of the jokes wouldn't be gotten by kids who (presumably) have never seen a James Bond (or other spy/thriller) movie in their life.
7) The one about the bastard unclaimed (and unknown) son of a famous man (based on, it seems, an affair or fling or possibly a divorce) who inherits none of his father's talents or skills, and has nothing to commend him except a gentle heart. Also about judging based on appearance or race. Also about finding your passion and skill-set and working on it (making it your job). Includes a near-double-murder/gun-shooting turned to passionate (implied, off-screen) lovemaking. Also, the power of friendship.
8) The one about the post-apocalyptic loneliness of the final survivor, and about the power of humanity to overcome its own mistakes if they simply acknowledge them and seek to learn from them and move on, as well as the dangers of consumerism. Also about protecting the environment, or whatever, and something about the soul or some such (it's a little vague). Also, the power of friendship.
9) The one about the septuagenarian widower who lost his wife, his job, and (finally) his house due to the callous negligence of modern existence no longer valuing his input, and his own stubbornness and inability to change (due to comprehensible history), and how he learns to cope with lost love, and continue to live his life, despite the fact that the world at large has moved on beyond anything he can meaningfully contribute in most situations. Also, the importance of finding new loved ones, and the problems that divorce can cause on children involved with it. Oh, and he meets his childhood hero who attempts to murder him because of insanity. Other themes include the importance of keeping your word, and recognizing the value of others. Also, the power of friendship.
10) The movie that explores the nature of the relationship between a daughter and parent. I would suggest that this more accurately be called a "teen movie" than "kid's movie", though there are many lessons for parents as well as their children. It teaches the value of freedom of choice, as well as the importance following tradition, and the necessity of compromise within these elements. Also, the power of friendship familial bonds (and, a juuuuust a little bit, friendship).
That said, I'd be all over a (well) animated movie by Studio Ghibli, Pixar, or Dreamworks, though it'd be difficult (though definitively not impossible; see: Princess Mononoke) to get them to encapsulate the themes of Pathfinder in a reasonable way.
That said, I also think that you're more likely to find eastern animation companies and studios who are willing to make these kinds of things than western ones. There certainly are western studios who would, but they are less common. Eastern does not only include Japanese, it's worth noting.
I'd also love a live-action adaptation. One of the reasons I think that adapting a one-shot module into a movie instead of an AP is a great idea is that modules are self-contained, allow for the rules to assist in crafting the story, and also represent an "iconic" (recognizable by fans) set of movements and moments through a story.
Of course, as the series Sherlock shows, you actually can make a series that are also full-length movies. At the same time. I think that would be my preference, if possible, though given the high cost of a fantasy budget (compared to Sherlock's relatively humble one), I doubt it would occur, or if it would, I tend to think that it wouldn't get the "needed" funds.
Reference dungeons, I think Shattered Star might make for a great set of movies in dungeons.
I've long maintained that the old 3.5 module Sons of Gruumsh would make an excellent movie or series, as it includes politics, intrigue, skill use, combat, magic (high and low), cities, wilderness, and dungeons. All as part of the same adventure. It even handily links the idea of adventuring parties as being a "thing" and (as currently written) has the added benefit of using Forgotten Realms, ensuring a draw for fans beyond the hobby (as fans of novels and world at large aren't always players).
It has:
- all classic gaming tropes (at least the eleven I mentioned, probably more).
It's not the best module ever written or anything (though I really like it), but it doesn't need to be. It just has the basic framework of a game and all the iconic elements baked in.
In PF, I could see things like Into the Haunted Forest, Seven Swords of Sin, Gallery of Evil, City of Golden Death[i], and [i]Hangman's Noose being good stand-alone adventures turned into movies (as far as I'm aware, they're all stand-alones?), though none of them have the mix of classic tropes that Sons of Gruumsh does, from what I know of them (and Seven Swords of Sin and Gallery of Evil would likely be a pain and a half to do the special effects for alone).
If we cast our net a little wider (beyond one-shots, and beyond one movie), I could see the Price of Immortality arc.
If we committed to six films, I could see Rise of the Runelords, Shattered Star, or Jade Regent as really decent ones; Curse of the Crimson Throne or Council of Thieves as potentially great; and Carrion Crown, Reign of Winter, or Legacy of Fire could be pretty amazing, but would be exceedingly budget-intensive.
* This is not to say that Dreamworks is a bad company. The opposite is true. In fact, Kung Fu Panda (both of them), How to Train Your Dragon, and Megamind are all excellent movies! Of course at least two of those aren't kid's movies either.
** rimshot (in the second spoiler)
I would just like to point out a common misconception.
Dreamworks* does (sort of), but Pixar (usually) does not. I know, I know. It's easy to be fooled by the bright colors, kid-friendly side kicks (as opposed to protagonists**) and use of clean language and characters. But (most of) the Pixar movies are some of the most mature, adult pieces written today. It's okay. Most people are. I was until fairly recently :)I'd argue that the Sinspawn could fit just fine. After all, Animated doesn't always equal kids' movie. Or, at least, shouldn't.Yes, but Dreamworks/Pixar make kids' movies. :P
Eh. Just because the movies are good and thoughtful doesn't stop them from being kids' movies. By that logic, Kung Fu Panda 2 ain't a kids' movie, either.
Which actually seems to be your argument. I find that really weird.
Wait, no, hang on. I need to modify my wishlist.
My ideal Pathfinder movie would be animated (preferably in 2.5D, but that's another matter), involve key Golarion themes, and have a script written by me.
C'mon, Paizo, you know you can't resist! Once you go kobold, I will never finish that sentence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would just like to point out a common misconception.
Dreamworks* does (sort of), but Pixar (usually) does not. I know, I know. It's easy to be fooled by the bright colors, kid-friendly side kicks (as opposed to protagonists**) and use of clean language and characters. But (most of) the Pixar movies are some of the most mature, adult pieces written today. It's okay. Most people are. I was until fairly recently :)I'd argue that the Sinspawn could fit just fine. After all, Animated doesn't always equal kids' movie. Or, at least, shouldn't.Yes, but Dreamworks/Pixar make kids' movies. :P
Eh. Just because the movies are good and thoughtful doesn't stop them from being kids' movies.
This is very true! How to Train Your Dragon fits this very well!
(As does David the Gnome - an incredible cartoon, although its poor animation budget and extensive age seems exceedingly obvious now, regrettably.)That was never my point.
By that logic, Kung Fu Panda 2 ain't a kids' movie, either.
Which actually seems to be your argument. I find that really weird.
I'm pretty sure you're just being fooled by the bright colors and clean language and humor. And you probably didn't read my examples at all (or, if you did, you didn't relate them to the movies they described). Within that list, there are many specific themes, elements, and protagonists are not readily able to be related to by children.
Megamind is not a kids' movie. It's kid-friendly, but it's not a kids' movie. The only point that kids can relate to is "super-heroes" and "bullying" (and maybe deception). That's it. Congrats!
You can find it weird all you like. Doesn't make it wrong.
I define the difference between Kids' movies and kid-friendly movies as the former (like Spy Kids) is about kids with kid-relatable primary elements (and maybe some secondary elements sprinkled in for adults), while the latter (such as the first nine movies I listed) are not primarily kid-relatable, but have fun 'secondary' elements that kids can also enjoy despite the mature, adult nature of the primary content.
A kids movie deals with kids' stuff (usually in a different context) or deals with things in a non-mature manner (though that doesn't automatically relegate it to kids' fare - the short version, is that I lack the words to sum this part succinctly).
A kid-friendly movie allows kids to have fun despite the content dealing primarily with non-kids' stuff.
"Thoughtful" doesn't mean "mature". Those are different (though related). :)
At any rate, I suspect we simply won't agree. So - dropped?
C'mon, Paizo, you know you can't resist! Once you go kobold, I will never finish that sentence.
;P
I just wanna see some really high level spellcasting combat. Caster on caster. Flying around, throwing massive damage spells at each other, causing untold amounts of collateral damage. And then a Fighter chopping the bad one in half with a single stroke.
That would be great. It's not going to happen unless it's animated.
(I'm not saying you don't want it animated, I'm simply pointing that out as a limiting factor.)Flight, for example, is incredibly hard to "do right", and when you do so (one of the few examples: Iron Man) it almost never looks like Pathfinder Flight.
In animated features you can get away with that sort of thing: see tons of Anime (a series often has at least one at some point or another) for examples.
My ideal Pathfinder movie would ... have a script written by me.
... not me. I do not want to write that script. At least not by myself.
I'd want to collaborate on that script, sure, and I'd want to assist with the outline, but I wouldn't want to be the sole person responsible. One reason for that is, inevitably, I'd have a slant that people simply could not relate to. With the proper help, however, I know we could make
That is one reason I'd want to start with a universal basis - a self-contained module, for example. That would be pretty awesome.
If we grabbed several (say, half-a-dozen) GMs, had them tell their stories, make a composite outline that was very loosely based on their stories (not a detailed recounting) and then built a solid script and dialogue based around that, we'd have something to work with, and that would create a kind of universal thing.
To be clear, we're not going to ever "quote" a specific moment from a game (unless it's universally declared as "awesome"*), but rather get the gist of the flow of a game, and then, with a composite view of that flow, edit, cut, mold, and write until there's a good story (regardless of how much it resembles any of the original games).
That's actually a really solid way to write most stories (GMs' personal tails aside): get a rough plot (a module), get the gist of some characters (composites of players' PCs), a flow of those characters through the plot (the gist of the composite as an outline), then fill in the actual details (actually write the story).
I'd love to collaborate on something like that.
* And even then, it would be tailored to the characters within the story itself. And if it doesn't fit - chop it!
** spoiler omitted **...
... not me. I do not want to write that script. At least not by myself.
I'm pretty ambitious. I honestly think I could make that script, and I'm sure someday I'll try. Or maybe a Pathfinder TV show. Kinda aiming for an Avatarish demographic. ;D
Your mistake presumes that 1) I'm offended (I'm not), 2) I think kids shows are naturally "crappy" (I don't), 3) I want them to cater to me (I don't), 4) I loved <Pixar films> when I was a kid (in fact, I appreciate them substantially more now that I can understand their nature), 5) that I think they're at all immature (I don't).
Your counter argument fails on all levels. TV Tropes can argue "just as validly" for my position, as well.
Both tropes are equally as relevant here: as in, they're not.
Pixar produces mostly kid-friendly fair that is mostly not targeted towards kids, but allows products that are targeted towards kids. To reiterate, most of the focus and themes of those films are things kids cannot relate to. To kids, most of these are "setting elements" - basically MacGuffins that help the plot move forward (if they are understood at all). To adults, the people, events, and so-on are those of real people in un-real situations.
The stories are adult stories. There are a few exceptions.
Your use of "crazy warped" indicates, if anything, I might have offended you somehow. I'm sorry: that's not my intent. :/
But seriously: re-read those plot descriptions and really think about them. Heck, I noted that How to Train Your Dragon, in fact, is a kids' movie. Megamind is not. Both Dreamworks. I'm a big fan of both. Different base movies. I have the ability to differentiate between two movies I really like (one being a kids' film, one kid-friendly film that's not a kids' film), both of which I was introduced to in my adulthood.
If you want a set of further differentiation in Pixar films we've not yet talked about, but that I've seen and recall:
1) Antz: for adults
2) Prince of Egypt: for kids (I love this film)
3) Shrek (and sequels): for adults (well, sort-of; some of them are)
4) Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron: for adults (not great, but decent)
5) Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas: for kids (also not very good; I will note, however, that this one, of any on the list, may well fall to your linked article)
If you can't see the difference in these films (with the noted possible exception of Sinbad, I submit) then it's a perception problem - obviously, I don't think that perception problem is on my end, and you don't think it's on your end. Thus we can agree to disagree.
To sum up my position, again: is the primary protagonist and their major motivations something children can relate to?
If yes: it's a kids' movie.
If no: it's an adults' movie (but can be child-friendly).
EDIT: It's worth noting that someone does not always set out to create one and end up with their intended goal. There are many (myself included - and the two articles we both linked prove this - that find it hard to differentiate. Intent or expectation doesn't always generate what is intended. That doesn't negate what is created or necessarily hamper its validity. This is true of authors, directors, and producers.
EDIT 2: I've seen more Pixar films than I thought I'd seen, but I'm not going down the whole list - too many. They tend to be either really good or not-so-much. Very few "fairly okay" films. Interesting.
EDT 3: David the Gnome. You must see this once in your life. Also, while I'm linking, Pixar films to.
I'm pretty ambitious. I honestly think I could make that script, and I'm sure someday I'll try.
Good luck! I really hope it'll turn out better than any previous attempts and, if so, it gets picked up.
Or maybe a Pathfinder TV show. Kinda aiming for an Avatarish demographic. ;D
As far as the TV Show, that could definitely work (though it needs to stay far away from the old show). Again, the animated field is something I solidly agree with you on. In all cases, it wouldn't be Studio Ghibli, Pixar, or Dreamwork. None of those companies - as awesome as they are - would willingly tackled the nuanced nature of Pathfinder morality and similar related elements. That kind of nuance isn't child-friendly at all.
The fact that (regardless of how evil it's supposed to be relegated to) you can summon Western-style demons isn't something that they'll handle. Studio Ghibli... might... but it's not really likely. Especially not as Pathfinder presents them.
A list of their films shows: Grave of Fireflies, Princess Mononoke, maybe the Tales from Earth Sea (I've not seen that one) indicate the ability to handle maturity and violence, but the first two, at least, are pretty much predicated on the opposite position PF takes (that judicious application of violence or self-willed independence can solve problems).
Similarly, Bluth is awesome, but his style (even in his closest-to-it work, Titan A.E., which is a great film) doesn't quite encapsulate the "grit" or the "heroicism" (I know it's not a word, but let's go with it - the clarity of alignment and purpose, let's say) of PF. I think Titan A.E. would definitely come the closest, though. (Of course, I might just be mis-remembering it - it's been quite a while since I've seen that one, I have to admit.)
EDIT: for a bit more clarity and word-choice.
I dunno, Pixar, Dreamworks, Ghibli and Disney all make films based on the real world, and they do just fine. Some of Pathfinder does keep with that moral ambiguity, but it's not intrinsically tied to the setting. And some of Golarion's themes--pure evil (if sometimes) monsters, the importance of tolerance--actually translate quite well to kids' stuff.
Really, a Pathfinder movie--like a Pathfinder game--will be as grim as the writer or GM wishes. Will it be Burnt Offerings, a tragic tale of treachery and heroism? Or will it be Sins of the Saviors, a story of...well, it sounds kinda dark.
As far as the TV Show, that could definitely work (though it needs to stay far away from the old show)
What old show? Are you referencing the D&D TV show?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, Pixar, Dreamworks, Ghibli and Disney all make films based on the real world, and they do just fine. Some of Pathfinder does keep with that moral ambiguity, but it's not intrinsically tied to the setting. And some of Golarion's themes--pure evil (if sometimes) monsters, the importance of tolerance--actually translate quite well to kids' stuff.
To me it's not that they wouldn't get one or two aspects of it - it's that due to the way they comport themselves, there'd be several things that were deeply changed (one of the reasons the first three films are considered "not good") or missing altogether (another reason the first three films are considered "not good") - Pixar doesn't do kid-unfriendly, DreamWorks deals with dark films, but those are live-action. DreamWorks animated films don't really work that way. (About the closest was the excellent Rise of the Guardians.)
To me, if we wanted their animation department to do it, our best shot would be Ghibli, but the problem with that studio is that they'd necessarily either miss some of the basic elements of Pathfinder (due to their consistent stance on morality - something I laud them for) or they'd undermine their own studio. I'm not interested in either of those things happening.
The avatar team, on the other hand, I could see doing something like this, though it'd be a more difficult sell with bloody stuff. The'd do it, but it'd be more difficult.
One studio (or studios? I dunno) that I could see handling the violence and concepts of enforcement-through-force fine is the one(s) that make DC Universe Original Animated Movies. I'd originally thought they were associated with the excellent DCAU - boy was I wrong!
Really, a Pathfinder movie--like a Pathfinder game--will be as grim as the writer or GM wishes. Will it be Burnt Offerings, a tragic tale of treachery and heroism? Or will it be Sins of the Saviors, a story of...well, it sounds kinda dark.
I actually agree with this statement.
To be clear, by "violence", I'm not talking about gore. I'm talking about the fact that, in order to win, you need to repeatedly hit something with your lethal weapon (or lethal spells) until it stops breathing.
That's pretty core to the Pathfinder game, and it's hard to get around that without ignoring much of what makes PF into PF. (It's one of the things the original film kind of tried to do, but failed at.)
Pixar is right-out because of this.
DreamWorks could do it, but it wouldn't be released as a DreamWorks film.
Ghibli could certainly handle that, but would condemn it as ultimately "the wrong thing" and would moralize about the importance of understanding and/or imagination instead. (An awesome lesson, but not Pathfinder's.)
Pathfinder isn't something that kids should be kept away from, necessarily (and a GM can always tailor their games). But the material involved would not make a "kid-friendly" show. To do otherwise means leaving the game as it functions relatively quickly behind.
Many anime studios could make it work. Unfortunately, I know few Western series where it could work - and most of those produce hideous animation. :/
Perhaps some of the Star Wars animation groups, though considereing their strong association with Star Wars, I'm not sure how much they'd be "up" for that kind of thing.
That's why I think the animation studio for Avatar could cut it (though Nickelodeon would, of course, never green-light it). Being a Korean studio, they would be free, socially, of much of the constraints of Western studios, but they'd be recognizable in the Western markets enough (without infringing on Last Airbender's stuff) to work.
As far as the TV Show, that could definitely work (though it needs to stay far away from the old show)
What old show? Are you referencing the D&D TV show?
Yes.
For my own preferences, I'd be fine with moderately low-level magic stuff, if it's done well. That would be almost necessary in a live-action adaptation anyway, because I've never seen anything live-action that could even come close to high-level PF stuff without looking incredibly goofy.
If we went with animated, the general "level" wouldn't matter too much.
We should get Bakshi to do it.
:(
To me it's not that they wouldn't get one or two aspects of it - it's that due to the way they comport themselves, there'd be several things that were deeply changed (one of the reasons the first three films are considered "not good") or missing altogether (another reason the first three films are considered "not good") - Pixar doesn't do kid-unfriendly, DreamWorks deals with dark films, but those are live-action. DreamWorks animated films don't really work that way. (About the closest was the excellent Rise of the Guardians.)
Actually, Dreamworks has a tendency to make very dark movies. Kung Fu Panda 2 and Prince of Egypt are the best examples. Dreamworks does a lot of comedies, but it's also a big fan of tragic villains.
The avatar team, on the other hand, I could see doing something like this, though it'd be a more difficult sell with bloody stuff. The'd do it, but it'd be more difficult.
Blood is not an intrinsic theme of Pathfinder and could be avoided quite easily. "Avatar" and "Batman: TAS" are two good examples of violent TV shows that used their imagination to avoid having to actually show blood.
EDIT: Another great example of a bloodless PG movie with plenty of violence is Legend of the Guardians.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Dreamworks has a tendency to make very dark movies. Kung Fu Panda 2 and Prince of Egypt are the best examples. Dreamworks does a lot of comedies, but it's also a big fan of tragic villains.To me it's not that they wouldn't get one or two aspects of it - it's that due to the way they comport themselves, there'd be several things that were deeply changed (one of the reasons the first three films are considered "not good") or missing altogether (another reason the first three films are considered "not good") - Pixar doesn't do kid-unfriendly, DreamWorks deals with dark films, but those are live-action. DreamWorks animated films don't really work that way. (About the closest was the excellent Rise of the Guardians.)
See, it's not just "dark" that really defines it. If it were just "dark", than it would be far easier.
Again, I'm not talking about gore.
Kung Fu Panda 2 shows heroes winning through martial superiority. What it doesn't show is the badguys dying by that martial superiority. In fact, the bad-guys die due to their own things falling on them or being killed by other bad-guys. This is actually something that I whole-heartedly agree with, but it's not something that Pathfinder teaches.
In Pathfinder, you kill the other person with violence.
The avatar team, on the other hand, I could see doing something like this, though it'd be a more difficult sell with bloody stuff. The'd do it, but it'd be more difficult.Blood is not an intrinsic theme of Pathfinder and could be avoided quite easily. "Avatar" and "Batman: TAS" are two good examples of violent TV shows that used their imagination to avoid having to actually show blood.
EDIT: Another great example of a bloodless PG movie with plenty of violence is Legend of the Guardians.
Sorry, that wasn't what I meant by "bloody". Princess Mononoke has blood. That's not really a "thing".
The main problem with Batman: TAS and Avatar is the same: they don't kill people with violence. Both series flirted around the issues. Similarly, Gargoyles.
Violence was often utilized to defeat the villains, but the heroes had a strict moral code of "no killing". Even when Aang talks to his past selves and they suggest the killing element, ultimately the hero was not permitted to kill.
This is an awesome lesson for modern life and children within it.
Unfortunately, Pathfinder (or rather Golarion) is in a setting that is far, far more primal than we are. Deadly force is not only the easiest outcome, it's also often the preferable one. Who, exactly, are you going to turn Runelord Karzoug over to? How are you going to stop him from using his magic? Feeblemind? Great! A lobotomy! That's how we should display defeating bad guys!
The fact is that these shows lack the underlying concept of violence perpetrated by the heroes leading to death of the villains inherent in Pathfinder.
Don't get me wrong - I love those shows. They are among my favorite, period. Heck, I agree with their moral outlook more than that Pathfinder, at least in terms of representing lessons that we, as a society on the whole, should learn. (In fact, my PF games tend to be, "We recruit and redeem all the villains! ... except maybe one or two who were unfortunately effectively hoist by their own petard, and/or we executed them in lawfully-sanctioned prevention-of-future-crimes style execution.")
But that (and my personal games and views) won't really work for representing PF on the screen.
In PF, you go around and kill orcs. You don't have to show every random encounter (that would be boring and unproductive) and you don't have to be gory (lots of blood not-needed), but you do need to be willing to display that death-by-violence can solve the heroes' problems.
That puts it pretty firmly in the "rated R" category of most films.
Pathfinder is much more closely related to Die Hard (only with magic and monsters rather than bank-robbers) than it is with the darkest Western animated series that I know of and enjoy. Actually, Die Hard - the first one - would be a pretty awesome model for a PF film.
Not the actual plot, but the procedure thereof: you have a <group of> guy<s/gals> that, for <insert reason here> must traverse a confined obstacle course in which <t>he<y> suffer<s> numerous wounds and indignities, meet new (comprehensibly placed) foes in semi-random situations whom <t>he<y> eliminate<s> with extreme prejudice. In the end, <t>he<y> save a large number of people (such as a town hostages) and are rewarded for the effort with new comradery and romance (maybe) <and wealth>.
That's a pretty standard dungeon crawl. And a good one. Huh. I don't know if I'd ever realized that before.
You could make a PG movie out of it, but most of 'em would be lacking something critical to the Pathfinder experience.
I want to emphasize this: most is not all. My only point is to say that it'd be a very difficult line to walk. Additionally, I'm not sure that, even lacking gore or other obvious signs of bloodshed, it would pass the censors. (Although Adventure Time does so... who knows.)
EDIT: Also, since I've not seen Legend of the Guardians, I can't really comment on it.
See, it's not just "dark" that really defines it. If it were just "dark", than it would be far easier.
Again, I'm not talking about gore.
Kung Fu Panda 2 shows heroes winning through martial superiority. What it doesn't show is the badguys dying by that martial superiority. In fact, the bad-guys die due to their own things falling on them or being killed by other bad-guys. This is actually something that I whole-heartedly agree with, but it's not something that Pathfinder teaches.
In Pathfinder, you kill the other person with violence.
You don't have to. Especially with comedic creatures like goblins, there are always alternatives, just as there are in the movies.
Kids' movies are quite fond of death, though. Moses and his God trap Ramses on a rock in the middle of the ocean to die of thirst. Prince Eric impales Giant Ursula through the stomach with a ship. Prince Philip stabs Dragon Maleficent in the heart. Sullivan, while a redeemed baddy, sends a dagger flying into Jenner's back. The dinosaur kids bring down a cliff on Sharptooth. Flynn cuts off Gothel's power supply. Simba throws Scar off of Pride Rock into a raging inferno (okay, he survives that, but dies anyways, so he puts it on his kill count). Mulan blows up that guy. Jim launches Scroop off to drift forever in space. Po outright kills the villain of the first movie, no holds barred.
Most of those deaths were handled in a fairly indirect matter--no direct stabbing of the villain in their more human form--but that doesn't mean much for Pathfinder. Pathfinder has tons of room for nonlethal, comedic deaths for mooks and an equal amount of room for creative, indirect deaths for the real baddies. All you have to do is have Nualia fall off a cliff, or take on a more demonic form, or be devoured by that barghest. Tons of options!
That's because Pathfinder, like all tabletop RPGs, idolizes the "creative" player who utilizes the environment to do his job for him. One of my favorite encounters I've yet read:
Bloodbeard leaps onto one of the ship's catapults to hurl its barrel of alchemist's fire at his attackers. He hits and they take fire damage, but keep attacking him. He rants about the inevitability of the Blood Hosts' success, and how they'll burn forever in the end...
(Bloodbeard ends his rant.)
Bloodbeard: "The goblinoid empire shall sweep the land like a plague! And what are you going to do about it?"
Auriji: "This." (She uses her longspear to fire the catapult, sending Bloodbeard flying.)
Pathfinder often just has all-out melees, but that's not necessarily what makes a great movie. And often, it's not even what makes a great game.
Also, you should really see Legend of the Guardians. It's probably the darkest PG movie I've ever seen.
EDIT: I should also bring up that one of many themes in Pathfinder--especially for worshipers of Shelyn or Sarenrae--is forgiveness, and knowing when not to apply deadly measures.
EDIT x2: Also, the best way to allow for killing, demonstrated by Ursula and Maleficent? Make them not human, either the whole time or just at the time of death. Aladdin stabs Jafar, but it's okay because he's a snake. The Guardians (Dreamworks) blast more nightmares than anybody could ever count.
Paizo Messageboard: The Movie
Directed by Tim Burton. Starring Johnny Depp as Kobold Cleaver.
What's wrong with Bakshi?We should get Bakshi to do it.:(
Bakshi's great. I just don't want a film about drugs and hatred in the modern world (or, a film where everyone is naked all the time).
Also, my choices are: rotoscoping (which... some of it's... okay...) or really friggin' strange.
If he could redo Fire and Ice but successfully balance multiple non-broken heroes at once and put clothes on them (and make the female not a helpless wreck) I'd actually say it'd work well.
I mean the rotoscoping in that film and in American Pop were really well done.
I just don't think Bakshi can pull off something without the rug being pulled out from under him.
And I'm reasonably certain it's not possible anymore, anyway:
"[The film] made me realize that I'm not interested in [adapting another writer's story]. That the thing that seemed to interest me the most was shooting off my big mouth, or sitting in a room and thinking about how do you feel about this issue or that issue and how do you get that over to an audience, was the most exciting part of my life."[28]
I honestly dislike the very idea of rotoscoping in most cases. If you want so bad for the characters to move realistically, live-action it. ;D
See, it's not just "dark" that really defines it. If it were just "dark", than it would be far easier.
Again, I'm not talking about gore.
Kung Fu Panda 2 shows heroes winning through martial superiority. What it doesn't show is the badguys dying by that martial superiority. In fact, the bad-guys die due to their own things falling on them or being killed by other bad-guys. This is actually something that I whole-heartedly agree with, but it's not something that Pathfinder teaches.
In Pathfinder, you kill the other person with violence.
You don't have to. Especially with comedic creatures like goblins, there are always alternatives, just as there are in the movies.
I will tell you this straight-up: if the heroes win exclusively by indirect means, or even primarily through indirect means, it will not feel like a PF-based game.
Of course there are alternatives - but that is not the primary element of PF.
Your options in PF (in descending order of commonality) are:
1) kill them with violence you perpetrate
2) render them permanently helpless (there are very few options that are not exceedingly "squicky" in every way)
3) render them unconscious with violence you perpetrate (usually at a penalty or with a severe limitation - there few options otherwise)
Kids' movies are quite fond of death, though. Moses and his God trap Ramses on a rock in the middle of the ocean to die of thirst. Prince Eric impales Giant Ursula through the stomach with a ship. Prince Philip stabs Dragon Maleficent in the heart. Sullivan, while a redeemed baddy, sends a dagger flying into Jenner's back. The dinosaur kids bring down a cliff on Sharptooth. Flynn cuts off Gothel's power supply. Simba throws Scar off of Pride Rock into a raging inferno (okay, he survives that, but dies anyways, so he puts it on his kill count). Mulan blows up that guy. Jim launches Scroop off to drift forever in space. Po outright kills the villain of the first movie, no holds barred.
1) I really don't know where you got that idea: everyone else I've ever spoken to thought Ramses was shoved back to the other side of the sea. Although you didn't mention the part where all the firstborn died, so there's that. Not by "violence", but still there.
2) Prince Eric does impale Ursula - excellent point. (you address this below)
3) Sullivan was, ultimately, a bad guy. I agree it's not entirely "fair", and that he did the right thing by doing so, but the reason Secret of NIMH was able to get away with it was that Sullivan was already bad.
4) They bring down a rock on Sharptooth, but that doesn't actually kill it (as you can see it still moving as it sinks). Technically drowning is what kills it. Thus, indirect. (Also, Bluth is pretty amazing. Related: evil-gator kills Scar, but it's not our hero, thus it can be a "kid-friendly" film - hahah, no, All Dogs Go to Heaven, you are not.)
5) Flynn cuts off Gothel's power supply - but Gothel did all the dying on her own. Flynn did nothing violent there. No one even knew the "instant aging" would happen to Gothel - there was never any sort of an indication (to Flynn) that that was a thing.
6) You already point out that Scar survived the fall from Pride Rock - it's all about the hyenas. (Incidentally, it seems Mufasa would have survived, too, if it weren't for the wildebeest.)
7) I was pretty sure it was dragon that killed him. I think Mulan impaled him into the ground. Again, the hero avoids killing.
8) Jim doesn't launch him, so much as shove him back a little; it was Scroop's previous machinations that did him in from there; that said, I had to look this one up because it's been so long. To quote the wiki,
Jim manages to pull himself down and grab the top of the mast before Scroop can fully cut through, and the alien angrily leaps at him. Jim manages to dodge Scroop and shove him into the flag. The sudden jerk snaps the damaged rope and sends Scroop floating away to his death.
9) Interestingly, I had forgotten how Kung Fu Panda ended; I agree with your interpretation of Po. I really didn't think he'd done so, but the more I think about it, the more sensible that view seems.
Most of those deaths were handled in a fairly indirect matter--no direct stabbing of the villain in their more human form--but that doesn't mean much for Pathfinder. Pathfinder has tons of room for nonlethal, comedic deaths for mooks and an equal amount of room for creative, indirect deaths for the real baddies. All you have to do is have Nualia fall off a cliff, or take on a more demonic form, or be devoured by that barghest. Tons of options!
All but two, in fact. (Also: if I knew who Nualia was, the rest of your statement might hold more weight, though I get the gist.)
And here's the main problem - there isn't really that much death besides them. The entire movie blows its "death budget" on one (or, in a few cases, two) displays of death. (Other death occurs - the armies of the pharaoh, Mulan's bad guy's armies the implied death of an innocent girl and her village in the same movie, etc; but all that death is strictly either "off-screen" or not dwelt on or both.)
And, importantly, those direct deaths are exclusively dealt to non-humans.
This is an incredibly tight line to walk, and it strongly limits your options in Pathfinder. That can easily lead to an unpleasant dissonance in viewing.
That's because Pathfinder, like all tabletop RPGs, idolizes the "creative" player who utilizes the environment to do his job for him. One of my favorite encounters I've yet read:
Bloodbeard leaps onto one of the ship's catapults to hurl its barrel of alchemist's fire at his attackers. He hits and they take fire damage, but keep attacking him. He rants about the inevitability of the Blood Hosts' success, and how they'll burn forever in the end...
(Bloodbeard ends his rant.)
Bloodbeard: "The goblinoid empire shall sweep the land like a plague! And what are you going to do about it?"
Auriji: "This." (She uses her longspear to fire the catapult, sending Bloodbeard flying.)
Who idolizes what now? I've been in few games where that was even a possibility. It is certainly cool when it happens, but not always the most awesome thing a character can do.
I really have no idea who Bloodbeard is at all, and, although the situation is pretty great, it really sounds more like the villain coming down with a terminal case of stupid - the player just took advantage of it in a cool way.
Pathfinder often just has all-out melees, but that's not necessarily what makes a great movie. And often, it's not even what makes a great game.
But I'm not talking about just melee. I'm talking about consistent use of:
1) real, violent, deadly weaponry, whether melee or ranged2) highly destructive magical spells
3) deadly application of class abilities
4) the purposeful and deadly application of traps
These are the tools that the heroes of PF receive to do their job.
EDIT: I should also bring up that one of many themes in Pathfinder--especially for worshipers of Shelyn or Sarenrae--is forgiveness, and knowing when not to apply deadly measures.
That's... 1/10th of the major deities (a much smaller fragment of the extended pantheon), and ignoring that the part where Sarenrae tells you to straight up slaughter the fools who dare reject redemption in favor of evil makes up a lot of what happens in PF.
EDIT x2: Also, the best way to allow for killing, demonstrated by Ursula and Maleficent? Make them not human, either the whole time or just at the time of death. Aladdin stabs Jafar, but it's okay because he's a snake. The Guardians (Dreamworks) blast more nightmares than anybody could ever count.
Aladdin doesn't kill Jafar. Jafar is fine.
The nightmares, from what I gathered, were like evil animals? (Incidentally, I do think Rise of the Guardians makes a phenomenal PF movie. I made a thread somewhere around here on that topic that, like, one person responded to.)
Anyway, on the whole, I agree - that's a definitive code that Western animation uses to allow for such things. (Again, Adventure Time gets around this somehow - I've not quite figured out how, yet.)
But if everything looks non-human all the time, it's not going to be satisfying as a truly PF movie. Or if the Fighter only ever uses that blade of his successfully against a non-human monster, it's going to be dissonant and lacking - I'm not going to believe he's a great Fighter.
Blood isn't necessary, really, but it's not going to come off like the PF game comes off in almost every method you've mentioned. Gore isn't necessary, but it's going to be harder.
And ultimately, there is going to be too much violence for those films.
Too much violence directly perpetrated by the protagonists.
Those three studios would never go for it.
Maybe DreamWorks, but, as I said, it wouldn't be as part of their DreamWorks Animated line (even if it were an animated feature).
It's too opposed to Ghibli's code.
Pixar would never touch it. (Though they might refer you to MGM studios if the script were good enough.)
Also, you should really see Legend of the Guardians. It's probably the darkest PG movie I've ever seen.
I agree I need to see it. Having an infant/toddler makes for a really difficult time going to see movies.
I honestly dislike the very idea of rotoscoping in most cases. If you want so bad for the characters to move realistically, live-action it. ;D
Rotoscoping usually looks terrible.
American Pop is a really depressing movie (though it's supposed to be triumphant at the end its... not, to me*), but it does have decent rotoscoping (for the most part).
Lord of the Rings... does not.
Fire and Ice actually has great rotoscoping, from what I recall. One of the few cases. (He-Man, the old cartoon, if I recall correctly, is another that used roto-scoping.)
Anyway, I have nothing against rotoscoping, per se, but its done wrong so readily and so often (and so poorly integrated into the backgrounds so often) that I can't say I'm over-all a fan.
(Though Secret of NIMH does make it hard to argue with.)
* Look, I get that, in the end, he's famous, and he does so without relying on connections to the mafia, but he got that way by being a drug-runner. What little we see of him, the guy is a jerk, and pretty unpleasant all-round. Snazzy, sure, but a jerk. The kid who loses his voice (and eventually descends into a mafioso) at the beginning and the pianist are both comprehensible and respectable people. Third son (whatever his name is) is and last guy who we end on are... just bad. They're corrupted by their environment, yes. I grant. Thirdy had a terribly raw deal handed to him. But his response to that was awful, and he's generally a terrible person. And Finalist... how is it supposed to be a story of triumph when his entire deal was trading drugs to get political power? "Yay, a drug-trafficker becomes a pop star!" is not something I can really get behind. We also have no indication that the family line continues so... meh?
Other post is long so...
Inhuman monsters do abound, I submit. But you're going to have a difficult time "selling" an all inhuman cast.
1) goblinoids
2) undead
3) various monstrous humanoids (so long as they look sufficiently inhuman - no centaurs, for example)
4) elementals
The reason I don't cite demons, devils, or other outsiders in the above is by having one of those, you've instantly actively alienated a huge chunk of your potential audience. Anything that references something similar is going to come under heavy criticism and outspoken vocal rejection... from the Western film studios. And, again, having inherently, irredeemably monstrous creatures goes against Ghibli's ethos.
Oozes don't make for very compelling villains.
There're more, but I'm being called away by my toddler now. I'm out of time. :)
You don't have to. Especially with comedic creatures like goblins, there are always alternatives, just as there are in the movies.I will tell you this straight-up: if the heroes win exclusively by indirect means, or even primarily through indirect means, it will not feel like a PF-based game.
Not to you, clearly.
Of course there are alternatives - but that is not the primary element of PF.
The primary element of Pathfinder is killing? Then why are most pictures of the iconics focusing on the battle? It's the adventure that matters.
Aladdin doesn't kill Jafar. Jafar is fine.
Correct. This is why it was not in the "kill list". However, it is evidence of the rule that the hero can stab the villain as long as they aren't human. Maleficent is a more "final" example.
1) I really don't know where you got that idea: everyone else I've ever spoken to thought Ramses was shoved back to the other side of the sea. Although you didn't mention the part where all the firstborn died, so there's that. Not by "violence", but still there.
You see him in the middle of the ocean, so yeah.
4) They bring down a rock on Sharptooth, but that doesn't actually kill it (as you can see it still moving as it sinks). Technically drowning is what kills it. Thus, indirect.
Uh, yeah, by that logic, Scar's murder was indirect--it wasn't his throwing Mufasa off the edge that killed him, it was gravity.
(Also, Bluth is pretty amazing. Related: evil-gator kills Scar, but it's not our hero, thus it can be a "kid-friendly" film - hahah, no, All Dogs Go to Heaven, you are not.)
I was confused right up until the last line (which I don't really understand--did I claim to be a movie?). I believe the name you're seeking is Carface. ;D
6) You already point out that Scar survived the fall from Pride Rock - it's all about the hyenas. (Incidentally, it seems Mufasa would have survived, too, if it weren't for the wildebeest.)
Pride Rock and the place Mufasa died are different locations. Mufasa's fall was bigger.
7) I was pretty sure it was dragon that killed him. I think Mulan impaled him into the ground. Again, the hero avoids killing.
Mulan also committed genocide, but y'know...
8) Jim doesn't launch him, so much as shove him back a little; it was Scroop's previous machinations that did him in from there; that said, I had to look this one up because it's been so long. To quote the wiki,
There was also this exchange:
Scroop: "Tell Mister Arrow I send my regards."Jim: "Tell him yourself."
Jim's action was very deliberate.
And, importantly, those direct deaths are exclusively dealt to non-humans.
Which works out okay, because Pathfinder mooks are quite often non-human. Goblins are easy to dispatch comedically (comedic death is actually seen a fair bit in Dreamworks movies these days), and heck, you could even have them turn out to live and show up later. Since goblins are supposed to generally be silly creatures, there's no tonal inconsistency. In addition, you can send monsters like yeth hounds and shadows and zombies after the heroes--creatures they are allowed to murder.
Who idolizes what now? I've been in few games where that was even a possibility. It is certainly cool when it happens,
Exactly my point, thanks. The maneuvers aren't always easy to pull off (players don't always connect the dots, GMs don't always give the right options), but when we manage one, it's always remembered.
Special maneuvers are a part of Pathfinder's style. Just because they aren't always in the game doesn't mean they aren't very much present.
I really have no idea who Bloodbeard is at all
Why does that matter?
That's... 1/10th of the major deities (a much smaller fragment of the extended pantheon), and ignoring that the part where Sarenrae tells you to straight up slaughter the fools who dare reject redemption in favor of evil makes up a lot of what happens in PF.
It's not ignoring it. Included explicitly in my quote is:
and knowing when not to apply deadly measures.
Obviously there are times to be brutal, but two major gods in Pathfinder recognize the need for mercy.
And who cares what percentage they form? They're there, and a movie can use them. Mercy is a Pathfinder theme, and one I've seen plenty of times. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have all these goblin baby threads.
The reason I don't cite demons, devils, or other outsiders in the above is by having one of those, you've instantly actively alienated a huge chunk of your potential audience. Anything that references something similar is going to come under heavy criticism and outspoken vocal rejection... from the Western film studios. And, again, having inherently, irredeemably monstrous creatures goes against Ghibli's ethos.Eh, I'd say proteans, aeons and inevitables would be okay. ;D
And to do as you did, here's the summary.
Yes, you need a human villain. But you can use inhuman monsters (and comic violence) to handle the "we gotta have murderhobos" requirement, and the human villain can be thrown off a cliff or sent to Hell.
Pathfinder may be about violence, but it is not gritty. Less Game of Thrones, more Lord of the Rings--except the whole reason I'm into this discussion is that Pathfinder also has a cartoony edge, between its art style and, well, its monsters. That is why I don't think the absence of "guts and gore" (if you'll pardon the small hyperbole) is going to hurt things--there's more than one way to skin a cat.
Aladdin doesn't kill Jafar. Jafar is fine.Correct. This is why it was not in the "kill list". However, it is evidence of the rule that the hero can stab the villain as long as they aren't human. Maleficent is a more "final" example.
I actually agreed with this point. (And good recollection on Maleficent!)
Anyway, on the whole, I agree - that's a definitive code that Western animation uses to allow for such things. (Again, Adventure Time gets around this somehow - I've not quite figured out how, yet.)
But if everything looks non-human all the time, it's not going to be satisfying as a truly PF movie. Or if the Fighter only ever uses that blade of his successfully against a non-human monster, it's going to be dissonant and lacking - I'm not going to believe he's a great Fighter.
Blood isn't necessary, really, but it's not going to come off like the PF game comes off in almost every method you've mentioned. Gore isn't necessary, but it's going to be harder.
And ultimately, there is going to be too much violence for those films.
Too much violence directly perpetrated by the protagonists.
1) I really don't know where you got that idea: everyone else I've ever spoken to thought Ramses was shoved back to the other side of the sea. Although you didn't mention the part where all the firstborn died, so there's that. Not by "violence", but still there.You see him in the middle of the ocean, so yeah.
No, you see him on a rock. There are waves.
Here. He's got a huge rock wall behind him.
4) They bring down a rock on Sharptooth, but that doesn't actually kill it (as you can see it still moving as it sinks). Technically drowning is what kills it. Thus, indirect.Uh, yeah, by that logic, Scar's murder was indirect--it wasn't his throwing Mufasa off the edge that killed him, it was gravity.
Nope. Not gravity. Wildebeest. :D (But see below.)
The difference is in what they were trying to do. Though I submit that Bluth is harsher. (And, upon watching the Land Before Time sequels, far better.)
6) You already point out that Scar survived the fall from Pride Rock - it's all about the hyenas. (Incidentally, it seems Mufasa would have survived, too, if it weren't for the wildebeest.)Pride Rock and the place Mufasa died are different locations. Mufasa's fall was bigger.
I'll accept that. Re-watching the scene, I was blending this moment with this one. Either way.
Reference Jim: I'll accept that. My memory is fuzzy on it enough that I can't argue.
Reference Mulan: I actually noted her killing the horde. But that wasn't genocide. It wasn't systematic. It was reactive. It had nothing to do with "I want them all dead." and everything to do with, "I have to save all my peoples' lives, and they're killing them." And, again, what she did was entirely terrain-based. However, I just finished re-watching that film, and have to say: it was entirely her plan to launch jerky McHateface out of the city with a firework. It was the dragon that did it, but it was all her idea.
Ludicrous, because she should have just used his sword, but, you know, Disney.
(Also, Bluth is pretty amazing. Related: evil-gator kills Scar, but it's not our hero, thus it can be a "kid-friendly" film - hahah, no, All Dogs Go to Heaven, you are not.)I was confused right up until the last line (which I don't really understand--did I claim to be a movie?). I believe the name you're seeking is Carface. ;D
Yeah. I hated that film. I didn't like anyone except the little girl. Anyone. (Okay and her adoptive parents were cool.) And it was really squicky for her to be in all those situations. Blugh.
And no, you didn't claim anything of the sort. It just kind of popped up randomly. :)
... not that I'm scarred or anything. *twitch*
Now, with that out of the way: to continue this discussion meaningfully, with examples, I'm going to ask you for an AP that I've been through or GM'd that you've been through or GM'd.
Council of Thieves (all)
Kingmaker 1-4
Serpent's Skull (all)
Carrion Crown (all)
Shattered Star (all) <not yet running it, but prepping to as a GM>
Please cite one of the above that you've been through.
You don't have to. Especially with comedic creatures like goblins, there are always alternatives, just as there are in the movies.
I will tell you this straight-up: if the heroes win exclusively by indirect means, or even primarily through indirect means, it will not feel like a PF-based game.
Not to you, clearly.
Of course there are alternatives - but that is not the primary element of PF.
The primary element of Pathfinder is killing? Then why are most pictures of the iconics focusing on the battle? It's the adventure that matters.
Yes. Because it's what happens in the game. You build a character by scores/race/class, then arm people with lethal weapons and have them go kill the other people.
The Adventure comprises of a large number of situations, most of which, in most groups, are comprised of killing the other person. They then take their stuff.
If you read what my games are like, you will recognize that I'm not showing you my way of playing Pathfinder. I'm showing you the typical way. This is what I'm arguing for.
A supposed "skilled" warrior who never manages to wield his sword for anything other than dropping chandeliers on people comes off as foolish, trite, childish, or bumbling.
And, importantly, those direct deaths are exclusively dealt to non-humans.
Which works out okay, because Pathfinder mooks are quite often non-human. Goblins are easy to dispatch comedically (comedic death is actually seen a fair bit in Dreamworks movies these days), and heck, you could even have them turn out to live and show up later. Since goblins are supposed to generally be silly creatures, there's no tonal inconsistency. In addition, you can send monsters like yeth hounds and shadows and zombies after the heroes--creatures they are allowed to murder.
Again, my point wasn't that there are none - it's that there are too few. It's really hard for me to envision a film that consists of goblins doing wonky things and getting wonky deaths as a result as being satisfying.
As I've said repeatedly - it's not that it's impossible, it's that it's exceedingly difficult. (Incidentally, I suspect animal-rights activists would be up-in-arms if you showed Yeth Hounds being destroyed by active hero-ing.)
1) Monsters V. Aliens - didn't see it, can't comment
2) How to Train Your Dragon - only the one mega-monster, not comedic
3) Shrek Forever After - no death
4) Megamind - no death (though one is presumed before being revealed false later)
5) Kung Fu Panda 2 - three deaths that I know of (or more, if you count Po's flashbacks or old age) none comedic
6) Puss in Boots - didn't see it, can't comment
7) Madagascar 3 - didn't see it, can't comment
8) Rise of the Guardians - only the nightmares which were only dubiously sentient
9) The Croods - didn't see it, can't comment (I really want to rectify this)
10) Turbo - no death
11) Mr. Peabody and Sherman - it's too new; haven't seen it yet, can't comment
There are five that I've not seen.
Monsters V. Aliens and Puss in Boots I could definitely see leading to comedic death. The Croods, probably.
Who dies in Madagascar? Or in Mr. Peabody for that matter?
I really have no idea who Bloodbeard is at all
Why does that matter?
It helps me to understand if that was poetic or stupid. In-character, or just GM-error. Etc.
Who idolizes what now? I've been in few games where that was even a possibility. It is certainly cool when it happens,
Exactly my point, thanks. The maneuvers aren't always easy to pull off (players don't always connect the dots, GMs don't always give the right options), but when we manage one, it's always remembered.
No, sir, it is not. It's not always remembered in favor of other things. Out of the last seven games I've GM'd, I know it's happened a few times, but I can't for the life of me remember them.
What do I recall? Several awesome "display" moments in combat. A few critical skill checks. That one critical hit. Several RP moments.
The environmental stuff can be very cool. Your story is cool. It's not always awesome or the most memorable.
(I actually recall one, now, after working on this post for too long. There was a guy who got bull-rushed off the side of a cliff. He was... I don't actually recall why they were fighting him now. It had something to do with the plot, but I don't think the PCs ever really learned what.)
Special maneuvers are a part of Pathfinder's style. Just because they aren't always in the game doesn't mean they aren't very much present.
But they're not Pathfinder's focus. (see below)
That's... 1/10th of the major deities (a much smaller fragment of the extended pantheon), and ignoring that the part where Sarenrae tells you to straight up slaughter the fools who dare reject redemption in favor of evil makes up a lot of what happens in PF.
Obviously there are times to be brutal, but two major gods in Pathfinder recognize the need for mercy.It's not ignoring it. Included explicitly in my quote is:[quote=
I]and knowing when not to apply deadly measures.
Fair enough. I spoke wrongly. "Marginalizing" is the word I was looking for.
Also, let's look at some of the other major deities with killing sentient beings as part of their major "thing": Gorum (war), Gozreh (brutal nature), Iomedae (crusader), Lamashtu ('experimentation'), Norgorber (straight-up murder), Urgathoa (disease, undeath), Torag (destruction of evil creatures). Neutrals, goods, and evils.
Nethys is known for the destructive side of his persona and church as much as the protective side, while Desna went berserk enough to annihilate a demon lord personally when pushed too far. Calistria is all about furious vengeance, including outright violence.
(Rovagug, too, is a destructive deity, but that's low-hanging fruit.)
That leaves, what?
Abadar (who the exceedingly brutal and deadly-force Hell Knights support/are supported by - though don't mention them), Asmodeus (the movie shan't have anything to do with Big-A or Cheliax, or your career in Western world = dead), Cayden (a warrior), Erastil (a hunting deity), Irori (a warrior-monk), Pharasma (all about death), and Zon-Kuthon (see Asmodeus, but for different reasons).
If you focus on the lesser deities or Dragon Empires you've got a very different set of tonal problems.
And who cares what percentage they form? They're there, and a movie can use them. Mercy is a Pathfinder theme, and one I've seen plenty of times. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have all these goblin baby threads.
It matters because it's all about presentation. This is the same problem with characters and violence v. comedic death and destruction.
You know what else exists in PF, and sees lots more use than environment-based death? Something that has led to many, many memorable moments in our games: Charm Person. If we were to make a movie, call it a PF movie, and have most everything repeatedly resolved with Charm Person, it wouldn't be a very good PF movie.
(It also likely wouldn't be a good movie.)
A single spell represents a very small facet of what characters do in PF. Similarly, two deities (or rather one deity and a solitary facet of another deity) don't make for a good focus for something that's supposed to capture the gist of the game.
Pathfinder would need to be more fully represented, otherwise you're going to have a large number of people turning against your ultimate film. It won't feel "PF" enough.
1) Combat (leading to death)
2) Skill checks (useful in combat)
3) Magic (useful in combat)
4) Equipment (necessary in combat)
These are elements that define PF as a system. If these are glossed over, or altered enough from the "base" presumptions, it ceases to be a good representation of PF.
And this is the source of my problem with the proposals. Most Western Animated films can't handle the level of violence that PF entails.
That doesn't represent the "murder hobos" idea. That represents a baseline presumption for PF.
Let me put it this way.
Here's how a game went fairly recently:
1) PCs found out about nefarious plot
2) PCs foiled nefarious plot
3) PCs defeated one villain in combat, and recruited the other to good
4) PCs raised all the dead guys (except those who refused to repent) back to life
This is not a typical PF game. It's our typical PF style, but it's not the typical PF style. If I tried to represent that as a PF movie, people would (comprehensibly) say that I had all those people raised at the end to make it "kid friendly" or something. It would come off as dissonant and not-standard PF (and thus not representative), despite the fact that it's what really happened in our game.
More to the points of discussion:
If Saranrae or Shelyn is included (there's no reason not to), and her theme of redemption is touched on (all good), it's not going to be the focus of the film, or if it is, that redemption is not going to be something that everyone manages to acquire. Not everyone in the film will worship Saranrae or Shelyn - in fact, not everyone in the adventuring party will! To do otherwise means that you're focusing on minutae instead of the big picture. You're making a Saranrae/Shelyn fan-film, instead of a PF film.
Simultaneously, writing off all the different sentient races as "irredeemable" because of what they are is going to come off very, very poorly as well, if you're focusing on the Redemption theme. Otherwise, you'r basically teaching the moral of fantasy racism, and critics and fans alike will (comprehensibly) tear your film apart on that basis. That's not what you're trying to say. But it's how it'll (very likely) come off.
The reason I don't cite demons, devils, or other outsiders in the above is by having one of those, you've instantly actively alienated a huge chunk of your potential audience. Anything that references something similar is going to come under heavy criticism and outspoken vocal rejection... from the Western film studios. And, again, having inherently, irredeemably monstrous creatures goes against Ghibli's ethos.
Eh, I'd say proteans, aeons and inevitables would be okay. ;D
I... really don't think so. Proteans aren't evil enough, and they and aeons are too insane, and inevitables are "just upholding the law".
Painting the latter two as "the bad guys" would be against Ghibli's tenets, and be impossible for Pixar to reconcile. Proteans, maybe, but then you're going to run into problems of having a comprehensible plot.
Ultimately, of any of them, it's going to be DreamWorks - but I don't have high hopes. My guess is that your best option of these would be to go to studios in the same way Bluth or Bakshi did.
(Oh, one other problem with some Bakshi animated films that I'd forgotten - don't have the animated creatures constantly making noises in the background. It's distracting and frustrating.)
Ugh. This post took way too long. Toddlers and my own biiiiiiiiiiiig mouth. Or fingers. Or something. Whatever. :)
I... really don't think so. Proteans aren't evil enough, and they and aeons are too insane, and inevitables are "just upholding the law".
I assumed you were saying demons and angels wouldn't be okay because of religious themes. I don't think they're against Ghibli's or Pixar's "tenants". Tyranny, slavery and apathy are not things they have to be okay with.
I'll respond to the rest later, since I have to get going and there's an awful lot to say. XD
Actually, I'm gonna cut this short now. In the same way we have irreconcilable definitions of what constitutes a "kids' movie", we have irreconcilable definitions of what constitutes Pathfinder.
Good luck if you ever decide to work on a script. I'll be working on my idea this April--'cause it can't hurt to try, right? ;D
Can't hurt! And good luck!
Also, this has been bugging me for ages. I've finally remembered the two movies with comedic death:
Turbo (from what I recall, either a couple snails or a couple birds get comedically axed)
Monsters Vs. Aliens (lots of clones)
Also, Finding Nemo has the anglerfish in the endcredits, if we want to be pedantic. ;D
EDIT: Also, just started watching The Croods. Two families just comedically died. When you see the context, it makes a bit of sense, but it's still, well, pretty darn harsh. XD
Also, this has been bugging me for ages. I've finally remembered the two movies with comedic death:
Turbo (from what I recall, either a couple snails or a couple birds get comedically axed)
Monsters Vs. Aliens (lots of clones)Also, Finding Nemo has the anglerfish in the endcredits, if we want to be pedantic. ;D
EDIT: Also, just started watching The Croods. Two families just comedically died. When you see the context, it makes a bit of sense, but it's still, well, pretty darn harsh. XD
Ah! I'd forgotten about Turbo! The death of the snails all happens "off screen", though. They're picked up by birds and flown away. Hard to do in combat, though with a dragon or something similar, I suppose that's possible.
Still haven't seen Monsters v. Aliens or Croods, so, good to know, there.
Oh! Ice Age! The dodos!