A community for everything Nintendo. Games, news, discussions, stories etc.
Game | Date
|
Xenoblade Chronicles X: Definitive Edition | Mar 20 [Switch 2 Direct] | Apr 02 Metroid Prime 4 | 2025
I really don't like this idea. The series has always been "pseudo mature", by which I mean it portrays itself as being for older audiences, but doesn't have any real meat on them bones. It's all fluff and aesthetics around good gameplay.
They should just stick to the games imo
What? Like maybe the open world ones were light on story, but there's plenty of lore in the Zelda universe to do all sorts of interesting things.
The games just might not be cinematic enough in their telling but a proper screenplay can tell the story better.
I love Zelda but a movie would be too weird. I like the "voiceless" Link. It puts the players thoughts as the response instead of a script.
Would be cool if they made the movie where Link doesn't talk at all. I can't think of any movies with a dumb protagonist, it wouid be a first. They'd also need to find an actor who is really good with acting with their face and body language.
Probably won't happen, though. We're going to get Link who talks and a reference to "Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuUUUUUUUUUUUUUssse me, princess!"
"They’d also need to find an actor who is really good with acting with their face and body language."
I immediately thought of Mr. Bean lol
This summer…
BEAN
IS
LINK
what if it's like botw/totk where everyone is fully voice acted, except for link who just waves his hands around every time has to explains something and everyone just repeats what he says.
I mean, that's been the standard since at least ocarina of time. I remember rolling my eyes at the other characters reading your responses back to you.
I was assuming it would be animated, but I lost hope when they said it would be live action.
I'm not sure what the point of an animated version would be... it would be like watching someone else play the game.
Don't think any move would be a good idea, Link doesn't really have a defined character because in the game you're Link. In any movie they'll need to define his character and it'll probably not match most people's expectations because everyone imagines Link's character to be different.
Well excuse me, Mr. poster, but he does have defined personality. It was (poorly) defined every Friday on the Super Mario Super Show.
Obviously said in the “well excuuuuuuuse me princess …”
Is Zelda going to say anything? Unless I’m mistaken, if he does you’ll get nerd fans just as upset as Dredd or Master Chief taking off their helmets.
He'll speak.
WELL EXCUUUUUUUSE ME! PRINCESS!
But... You just... You know that... You know that Zelda is the princess and Link is the guy right? Or was this on purpose since you mentioned upset nerds?
😉
You cheeky cunt. 😘
GOTTEM
I just hope that when "Kakariko" is inevitably said in the movie, it gets pronounced right
Is this bait? Like "gif" vs "jif", or is there really a non obvioua way to pronounce it?
Considering how Spielberg butchered Ready Player One, I hope they find someone more respectful.
The source material wasn't good in the first place.
I finished it as a hate read, hilarious for all the wrong reasons. Just a packet of clichés wrapped around nerd nostalgia. I absolutely lost it when a chapter was literally just reciting an 80s movie word for word. 🤣
That's a fine opinion to have, but it doesn't justify leaving out the coolest parts of the book, or ruining Art3mis's character, or changing Shoto's name.
The first good videogame movie was Wreck It Ralph.
It's nice that the recent Sonic and Mario movies didn't suck, although there's always a good chance they'll return to form.
I think Wreck It Ralph was a success because it explicitly wasn't based on a real video game, more just the idea of video games, with cute little references to real games. Starting off with original IP means you don't have an incredibly dedicated fanbase that can pick apart all the inaccuracies in your lore and character portrayals, which lowers the stakes a ton.
Making a Zelda game is risky because there are a ton of people out there with preconceived notions of how Zelda and Link are supposed to be portrayed, how the world is supposed to be portrayed, and the history of that world. If they get any of that wrong, those people are gonna be big mad. The stakes are much higher there.
The games have to get their continuity repaired once a decade or so as-is, and Link and Zelda get personality overhauls with each console generation. This is the perfect series to adapt because it's so variable to begin with.
They're canonically different Links and Zeldas though. Ganon is the only constant.
Well, mostly the same Ganon; he was slain and reincarnated in at least one timeline. Even the main incarnation can have his characterization can vary quite a bit, though, such as the more byronic personality seen in Wind Waker compared to the more agressive and brutal depiction in Twilight Princess.
Plus it's always been a game with a much more serious tone. Not sure they can really rely on a Jack Black/Jim Carrey vibe to save what might otherwise be a very bland movie.
Their best bet might be a Link's Awakening type thing, both in tone and style. If it's live action then gods help them because I can't see anything working there.
There is at least plenty of Zelda styles to go for.
The quote could have been, "Spielberg would want to do it, and no."
It might have worked around the era of Twilight Princess; there was enough continuity in the series that it had consistent lore, the games were trending toward cinematic, lots of cut scenes and character arcs and such. Not sure a movie is going to play well in the "We physically cannot care about this story" era represented by BotW and TotK.
Honestly, I don't think there was ever a time when Zelda had lore that spanned outside the borders of the individual games. Or at least, where lore like that was considered important or taken seriously. The whole timelines thing always seemed to me like a kind of after-thought.
The Legend of Zelda has a lot more in common with Final Fantasy. There'll be a lot of similar things in between each game, but each game is self-contained.
There was a span between Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess where each game treated previous ones as established history. The handheld games have always done whatever; Link's Awakening is a direct sequel to Link to the Past which is all a dream, it's directly in the text of that game. The Oracle games take place outside Hyrule, Minish Cap takes place in Hyrule but the distant past, so we can largely ignore them as side stories.
Ocarina of Time, especially given how tremendously popular it was, became an anchor point for the series. Majora's Mask is a direct 20 minutes later sequel which is almost like Link's Awakening. I subscribe to the fan theory that it's Link's dying fever nightmare. Wind Waker and Twilight Princess both treated Ocarina of Time as historical events that literally happened, even if they mutually ignored each other. I think that's why they did the multiple timelines thing, just to reconcile WW and TP.
You can just feel them wanting to shrug off the timelines thing from there; Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks are direct sequels to Wind Waker, Link Between Worlds is a direct sequel to Link to the Past of all games, Skyward Sword is a far past prequel, and then Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom are a reboot of the series.
But from about '98 to '05 or so, it felt like a series and not a franchise.
Wanna hear my juiciest Zelda conspiracy theory? There are several pages of lore at the beginning of the manual for A Link to the Past, I have the North American version of this, and I don't know how much of it was written by Nintendo themselves and translated or how much of it was written by Nintendo of America (I know Ganon's last name "Dragmire" was made up by NoA) but the whole thing retroactively reads like a design document for the rest of the series. Seriously go read it and try not to think "Holy shit this was written in 1990."
The Legend of Zelda: The Monkey's Paw