Stofsk wrote:So you've made your point... three pages ago. People disagree with you. Why are you continuing to justify your subjective dislike for the concept? Like I asked you before, why can't you separate your fannish obsession with Shepherd from the games to a hypothetical Shepherd in a hypothetical movie based off of the games? Why is it 'offensive' to you that Bioware want to broaden the appeal of their creation so that it reaches more fans and especially in a mainstream setting?
And they can't do that by delving into another part of the ME universe why?
This isn't about my Shepard/s. It's about everyone's. Everyone has a slightly different Shepard. Even the ones who use the default guy will play him differently.
Why does there have to be a movie with a "canon" way?
Bullshit. Spider-man has gone through so many different writers, artists, periods, events, transformations and what-not that adapting him to the big screen is roughly analogous to any hypothetical big screen adaptation of the Mass Effect franchise, and yes that includes Shepherd.
Spiderman was not designed to be a player-created character. However many writers and concepts he goes through, he's still a character the reader passively observes and doesn't have a hand in.
So instead lets have the studio spend tens of millions if not hundreds on a big screen movie that tells an obscure story that's background filler in the game itself? Yeah, we're the ones being fannish.
Obscure to what? The game. Hey, newsflash: If they flesh out the first contact war into a movie then
it will no longer be obscure.
Losonti Tokash wrote:Shepard is important to the whole fucking galaxy and everything in it, you dumbshit. Without Shep, rocks fall everyone dies.
So is Luke in Star Wars, and yet there comes a point where making everything about Luke is redundant and boring because there's, you know, a whole galaxy of stories out there.
How would making the movie not about Shepard diminish Shepard's importance in any case?