OOTS movie? Horrible Idea.

[doliemaster]

I don't know about anyone else but do any of you think a OOTS movie would be a HORRIBLE idea, since we all know Hollywood wouldn't let The Giant have any say in his brain child. The way I see it one of three things will happen-
1. D&D movie-enough said.
2.Childrens movie-Where to make it children suitable they make Belkar nice, destroy any form of bad guy character development, stop Roy from dieing, stop Miko from being Miko, and get rid of anything that would get it a rating higher than PG.
3.They change the animation style and everything else til' it is not even OOTS anymore, I mean they won't use the comics plot, they will change all the characters, and try to make it something people who know nothing of OOTS like, but fans hate.

Anyone disagree, agree, or wonder why the heck I am posting this?

[Tolkien_Freak]

It doesn't have to be by Hollywood, it doesn't have to be a kids' movie, it doesn't have to have drawing style changes.

I would be opposed to an OOTS move by Hollywood, but I wouldn't be opposed to one by The Giant and us here on the forums.

[doliemaster]

I'm saying if Hollywood gots its hands on it, all fans should weep.

[Tolkien_Freak]

I'm saying if Hollywood gots its hands on it, all fans should weep.

I heartily agree.

[Morty]

I'm saying if Hollywood gots its hands on it, all fans should weep.

I'd prefer to swear and curse.

[PaladinFreak]

I agree that Hollywood would kill it. I really don't want an OotS movie simply because there are some things, such as the voices of the characters, that I prefer left to the imagination.

[mohair_ninja]

1. An OotS fan(s) with Flash
2. Motivation
3. Voicing
4. :elan: Dun dun DUNH! An indie animated film!
(Or even TV series.)
I think that some D&D related gags should be omitted, to gain broader audience. It will result with something like animated comedy version of LotR.

And there is no need for Hollywood, no need to worry about rating (in Poland it would get 12 or 16 - we all know OotS is not for 7-y-old), no need to worry about artstyle. We only need some animators.

(Or actors, if you prefer live-acting film. But this eliminates next few gags about stick figures)

[doliemaster]

Really I would think it horrible to take out the DnD gags, alot of non-DnDers read this comic, Heck I didn't know anything about it when I first read the comic and loved it, and now that I know about it the comic is even funnier.

[Tolkien_Freak]

Really I would think it horrible to take out the DnD gags, alot of non-DnDers read this comic, Heck I didn't know anything about it when I first read the comic and loved it, and now that I know about it the comic is even funnier.

I agree. I've never played a minute of D&D in my life, but I still think the comic's awesome.

[SurlySeraph]

Something like the animated episodes of Control+Alt+Delete could work well.

[Mordokai]

I'd prefer to swear and curse.

Seconded :smallbiggrin:

I agre with PaladinFreak also, some things are best left to imagination. Everybody of us envisions things differently, and from that aspect I think the movie, no matter how good it would be, would still dissapoint majority of fans. That is, except if Rich partook a part in making.

[DrivinAllNight]

A movie with the oots characters would be fun, but instead of waiting for this story to come to an end, do a side story, or a side quest and make that part into a movie.
and thats my 2cp's

[Glome]

well it can always be done as a small indie film. Someone already did a little film for something positive before
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5499560824755354904&q=Exacerbation+Productions

The big problem would be the lack of special effects/good looking monster without the money to fund it. But then again, this is coming from a stick figure comic, so maybe animation would be the way to go as suggested earlier.

[David Argall]

I agree that Hollywood would kill it.
This negative attitude towards Hollywood is silly. We get all sorts of complaints about how they ruined this or that, and scads of people go see them.
And of course, we have quite a few Hollywood successes from comic books at the moment. So the idea something terrible would happen just does not fly.
Now there are problems, the biggest being that Hollywood just would not be interested. Spiderman had readers in the tens of millions. OOTS is in the tens of thousands. Add in that antimation is expensive and the OOTS movie goes right to the discard pile.
And the screen needs lots of material. All of OOTS to date probably isn't over an hour of screen time.

It would be great if Hollywood would do it, but don't hold your breath.


I really don't want an OotS movie simply because there are some things, such as the voices of the characters, that I prefer left to the imagination.
The talkies just wiped out the silent films. Radio can't compete with tv. Etc, etc. The idea of leaving things to the imagination is just not the way we do things.

[fangthane]

A few things. Perhaps more.

1. Rich maintains tight control over his baby. If there were a movie made, he'd be retaining control over it, never doubt that.
2. A movie about the plot arc he's writing could work, but it'd have to (obviously) wait until it's done, and would probably require some cuts, rewrites etc. That didn't bother Douglas Adams, but this is a different creature; Rich may be more inclined to preserve its initial state intact and unclouded.
3. A movie "In the world of the OotS" could work somewhat easier. It'd give Rich the flexibility to do cameos, do a deeper back-story on Soon and Mijung and the rest, or go off in a completely new direction while retaining the visual and intellectual elements which have made OotS a winner, while leaving their story arc substantially unchanged.
4. Mohair, remember that this comic is Rich's Intellectual Property; any dilution thereof (and a flash animation qualifies) has to be aggressively pursued and Cease-And-Desisted as soon as he's aware of it, in order to avoid losing or diminishing his IP rights. He had a post about that somewhere or other, but I lost the link when the boards got transferred.
5. David_Argall - Books>movies>tv>radio>books? :)

[Tolkien_Freak]

3. A movie "In the world of the OotS" could work somewhat easier.

That's an idea I really like.

[Mordokai]

And of course, we have quite a few Hollywood successes from comic books at the moment. So the idea something terrible would happen just does not fly.

Emphasis mine.

Oh really? Name five.

[SteveMB]

Really I would think it horrible to take out the DnD gags, alot of non-DnDers read this comic, Heck I didn't know anything about it when I first read the comic and loved it, and now that I know about it the comic is even funnier.

Most of what I know about D&D is from fannish cultural osmosis, and it's enough to get something out of most of the rules-based jokes in OotS. (For that matter, I know less about turn-based strategy gaming, and that didn't keep me from (eventually) getting a handle on Erfworld.)

I don't think that's an insurmountable issue, if we stipulated for the sake of argument that somebody thinks they can adapt this story to a mass-market medium and Rich thinks it's worth pursuing.

[fangthane]

Emphasis mine.

Oh really? Name five.

It really depends on how you define successful. Arguably, the following are candidates:
Spiderman 1/2/3
The Hulk
FF 1/2
Superman 1 (let's be honest, none of the others lived up to ANYONE's definition of 'successful' now did they?)
Spawn
Sin City
300
X-Men 1/2/3
Batman: The Movie
Batman Begins

Even hating Toby as much as I do, I have to acknowledge that at minimum 2 and arguably all 3 Spideys have been successful. That's two, cleanly passing the bar. Superman 1, for all it's got dated effects, was hugely successful in its day. That's 3. Sin City was excellently executed and could certainly be considered a success. And at that point, all we need to do is skip over the garbage and marginal stuff until we get to the two Batman movies which didn't suck.

Really good movies based on comics are rare, granted - but successful ones? Lots of them. I'd prefer to see a movie animated in a style consistent with the art, for OotS though - and that means we're shooting more for something like the HBO version of Spawn (which absolutely crushed the live-action movie) rather than a live-action adaptation.

(note the complete lack of The Punisher, The Punisher, Daredevil and Captain America in the list. They all sucked so badly nobody could possibly argue they were successful)

[Mordokai]

@fangthane: granted, most of the movies mentioned above were above average. But David Argall said we have "quite a few Hollywood successes from comic books at the moment". If we define "at the moment" as the last six months I think you will have much harder time finding five god movies after comic books.

Granted, I'm not the one to ask which movies after comics were good and which not. Why, you ask? Because most comic books that Big H turns to movies are american, and here in Europe we have different comic heroes than you guys in America. Still, I think the amount of good movies we get are meager compared to the amount of the bad ones.

[Cade Shadow]

OOTS movie? Horrible Idea.
Just like making a live action Avatar movie, but they're doing that.

[nothingclever]

Oots isn't even movie quality to begin with so it's not like this really matters.

[Grumlich]

@fangthane: granted, most of the movies mentioned above were above average. But David Argall said we have "quite a few Hollywood successes from comic books at the moment". If we define "at the moment" as the last six months I think you will have much harder time finding five god movies after comic books.


If you define "at the moment" as the last six months then asking for five good comic book movies is unreasonable given the total amount of comic book movies released in that time period.

You have to broaden that parameter, and I think all three Spider-Man movies, Batman Begins, Sin City, X-Men, and X-Men 2 all qualify as successful (Meaning movies that I personally enjoyed) fairly recent comic movies. I can't speak for the movies that I haven't seen, but of the 13 comic book movies I have seen in the last decade, 54% isn't too bad.

It really doesn't matter anyway. Oots in comic form is great and I don't think it would translate well to movies. An animated series might be cool though.

[David Argall]

If we define "at the moment" as the last six months I think you will have much harder time finding five god movies after comic books.
Of course, but note how you have already stacked the deck. The traditional challenge is "Name One!", not name five. And when we limit the time period to 6 months instead of a more traditional year or longer, we again have a serious tightening of standards. The grand total of successful Hollywood movies from all sources over 6 months is likely under 30. Given the large number of other sources, a finding that 5 came from comics would be deemed a major event.


I think the amount of good movies we get are meager compared to the amount of the bad ones.
Well, of course. The standard saying is "90% of everything is crap." So you expect the majority of Hollywood movies to be so too. But when you decide not to see them, or in the case at hand try to make one, on that grounds, you merely end up with 100% crap. So you go and hope, and every so often the hope is rewarded.

[Mordokai]

If you define "at the moment" as the last six months then asking for five good comic book movies is unreasonable given the total amount of comic book movies released in that time period.

I have a short attention span. And that's not a joke.


Of course, but note how you have already stacked the deck. The traditional challenge is "Name One!", not name five. And when we limit the time period to 6 months instead of a more traditional year or longer, we again have a serious tightening of standards. The grand total of successful Hollywood movies from all sources over 6 months is likely under 30. Given the large number of other sources, a finding that 5 came from comics would be deemed a major event.

The "name one" challenge tends to be too easy, at least in my experience. But I'll admit that maybe five was too much. So lets simplify this. Name as many as you can remember. Fair enought? As for the six month object, look above. But I'm also willing to give you a year you asked for, if you want it.


Well, of course. The standard saying is "90% of everything is crap." So you expect the majority of Hollywood movies to be so too. But when you decide not to see them, or in the case at hand try to make one, on that grounds, you merely end up with 100% crap. So you go and hope, and every so often the hope is rewarded.

Don't you think that that saying has to originate from somewhere? And hope is usually the one thing that sticks to me.

Just to point out, I'm not trying to argue with you, so please, don't get the wrong impression. And this is also mainly pointless debate becasue I don't have much arguments to present in my favor. But, I still like to debate, and if you prove me wrong I'm more than willing to confess I was wrong.

[Gallanoth]

Hollywood Kills almost every movie it touches that was "based" off of something like a book or a comic with very few exceptions. One very good example of them killing a story was "Eragon":smallfurious: . If an oots movie was to be made then it should be either made by The Giant or the fans.

[Unrepentant]

Hollywood Kills almost every movie it touches that was "based" off of something like a book or a comic with very few exceptions. One very good example of them killing a story was "Eragon":smallfurious: .


Wow, paint with broad strokes much? Numerous examples of comic book movies that were either financially successful, enjoyed by the poster, or both, have already been cited. But by bringing books into it, you've really opened yourself up for debate.

Lets take The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Movie based off a book written by J.R.R. Tolkein - everyone here should have enough geek cred to know that. 11 Oscars, with another 98 wins and 62 nominations it didn't win in for other film awards, is the second highest worldwide grossing film ever (unadjusted for inflation) and is rated as the 10th best film ever by the users of IMDB.com.

Of course, that could be one of the "few exceptions" you mention. Other exceptions must include the LotR films, The Godfather, The Shawshank Redemption, Brokeback Mountain, Gone With The Wind, Wuthering Heights, Dangerous Liasons, A Streetcar Named Desire, all of the Harry Potter films, The Wizard of Oz, The Green Mile, The Princess Bride, Blade Runner, Oh God!, Logan's Run, Soylent Green, Forrest Gump...need I go on?

Yes, there's far more crap then movies of this calibre, but that's human nature, especially in the entertainment world. It's spray and pray. Webcomics are not immune to it - very few are as enjoyable as The Order of the Stick.

I do think that an OotS movie is a bad idea, because Rich has designed this story with the webcomic format in mind. I'm inclined to believe that not every piece of art in one mileau works in every other format...and OotS is perfect as an episodic webcomic transfered to trade paperbacks. But if Rich signs off on it, which he would have to, and had creative control, I'd give it a shot, because I think he knows more about the topic than I do quite frankly, and I'm willing to bet $8 on that.

And that being sad, I think that trying to cast a hypothetical OotS movie is a fun and harmless web diversion...let it be.

[The_Hunting_Enemy]

I can't see it as a movie, but maybe a flash animation series?

[Lord Zentei]

Something like the animated episodes of Control+Alt+Delete could work well.

It's been a while since I read that regularly, and the archive is pretty large.

Linka please?

[Elfanatic]

I would only be interested in a movie and/or series about the Order of the Stick if Samuel Jackson would do the part of Roy, and Keira Knightley would be Haley. Both would be perfect for that, in my opinion.

[Emperor Ing]

:roy: im so sick of these mutha****ing goblins in this mutha****ing dungeon!!
Oh yeah i totally agree with that
Elan would be Tom Cruise, the movie would have to reveal V's gender, so we got an issue there. :smalleek:

[Yeril]

I think if it wasnt a movie, but like a trailer for a movie, or somthing, I can imagine the scene with Miko and Shojo with all the tension and accusation would be great to see in a very short trailer sense, just ending on "everything I did, I did for my people"

[Squark]

I don't know, they've made D&D movies before, right?

[Elfanatic]

I don't know, they've made D&D movies before, right?

If I'm reading this right, you have never seen any D&D movie?

Good. Never watch them. Throw any videos or dvds into the pyre. Keep at least 2 km between you and any establishement who sells them. Avoid them like the Black Plague, for they are the Black Plague, only worse.

Why? WHY DID THEY PUT MARLON WAYANS IN IT? WHY!!!!

[Nomadic]

I think it would be cool to have an OOTS animation kinda like Brian and crew set up for 8-bit theater. Though instead of following the comics storyline like nuklearpower did, make it a separate thing entirely with a side storyline (kinda like the books).

[Emperor Ing]

Its still gotta have
:elan: :vaarsuvius: :haley: :miko: :durkon: :redcloak: :xykon: :belkar: :roy: :mitd: :roach: :thog: :sabine: :nale: in it, (i put them in at random order, I probably doubled up or missed 1)
But just have Rich as executive producer! Problem solved

[Tolkien_Freak]

I think it would be cool to have an OOTS animation kinda like Brian and crew set up for 8-bit theater. Though instead of following the comics storyline like nuklearpower did, make it a separate thing entirely with a side storyline (kinda like the books).

That's the best idea I think we've had yet.

[Gabriel]

I think that if it doesn't follow the comics completely, it'll work. A lot of the gags are only funny unheard.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Make it a big mini-serie, with episode lenght being like Star Wars : Clone War's.

something about 5 minutes/episode, posted on the internet, and sold in a DvD compilation.

Make it follow the original plot line, with mostly the same jokes, but add a few that fits well a movie, and remove those that are comic-strip-specific (Thog's comment about Nale having left for only 3 panels jumps to mind)

(oh, damn.. will be hard to make Haley speak in cryptogram)

[Akaziel]

(oh, damn.. will be hard to make Haley speak in cryptogram)

I guess that when listening from Haley's point of view, speech is normal. When hearing from anyone else's point of view, something like "blah blah blah blah, blah blah" or her speech rewound.

Also, Hollywood BAD. Seriously.

[Oberon]

Why does everybody insist on adapting stories to new forms of media? I know the idea of an OOTs movie was not presented seriously, but this gives me a chance to rant.

The story was designed as a webcomic and is perfect in that form so what need is there to adapt it to a new format?

Movies based on novels, comics, and other print media rarely equal the original, and only make fans of the original excessively angry (after making money from them, which is why such movies are made).

Besides, there's nobody in the world who could play the part of Vaarsuvius, androgony and all.

[dragoncmd]

It really depends on how you define successful. Arguably, the following are candidates:
Spiderman 1/2/3
The Hulk
FF 1/2
Superman 1 (let's be honest, none of the others lived up to ANYONE's definition of 'successful' now did they?)
Spawn
Sin City
300
X-Men 1/2/3
Batman: The Movie
Batman Begins


None of those are comedic.

[Bitzeralisis]

I cannot imagine OotS in not-stick-people fashion. It would look wierd. reallllly weird. As a result, real-people movies are eliminated, and since nobody really makes movies of stick people, movies ALL eliminated.
That leaves us with Flash. Thing is, Flash would be quite easy (except for maybe the frame-by-frame animation for their arms waving around and such). And you don't even need voices for an animation. Implement subtitles. Deed done. Be satisfied. Leave the webcomic fans angry. Possibly Burlew himself too. Isn't OotS copyrighted? Is it possible to put copyright symbols on forum posts (just curious)?


Besides, there's nobody in the world who could play the part of Vaarsuvius, androgony and all.
I can rant on quite long sometimes, and love to use an expanded array of vocabulary in those aforementioned monologues. Problem is that my voice is too deep. Curse that putrid puberty, it wracks me with accursed downfalls to no end. Additionally my tone is a bit differed from Varrsuvius' style of speaking. You should be able to sense that by now. This is most probably my third most used tone on the world wide web.

[David Argall]

Why does everybody insist on adapting stories to new forms of media?
Because we like the stories in different media for different reasons. And adapting a story is much easier than creating a new one.


The story was designed as a webcomic and is perfect in that form so what need is there to adapt it to a new format?
The assumption it is perfect is clearly wrong. It is mortal made and thus imperfect. But why should we not consider it for other medium? How will it be inferior? Recall here that many such claims are flatly wrong. And there are many formats because there are many needs. Even if we assume its best format is a webcomic, that does not mean it will not benefit people in other formats.


Movies based on novels, comics, and other print media rarely equal the original,
Sometimes they are sharply superior. Recall here Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" The book made no great splash, for good reason. The movie was one of the top hits of the year.


and only make fans of the original excessively angry (after making money from them, which is why such movies are made).
Often enough they make the fans happy enough that sequels are filmed.


Besides, there's nobody in the world who could play the part of Vaarsuvius, androgony and all.
All the female parts in Shakespeare were played by boys. And we are not looking for hard to handle characters here. V can be cast out of any B company of actors. Naturally an A actor would be better. [The story is told of one Hollywood director of long ago who asked one of his top stars to read a script to him. The star put on a great performance as he read it, and the director quickly bought the script and made it into a picture, which bombed. The director's comment "That'll teach me not to have a $1000 a day actor read a script and a $100 a day actor play it."] But the stick figures are just that. Finding adequate actors will only be a routine problem.

[Albion]

I agree with the OP 100%, I think this would be more stupid to be put into film than a book often is. Different formats are beauty when put into perfection, but much of the OotS's charms lies in its format, so my vote is no, despite smart viewpoints from previous posters.

[Senex]

As far as horrible ideas go, OotS movie has nothing on OotS MMORPG.

[Revlid]

As far as horrible ideas go, OotS movie has nothing on OotS MMORPG.

I like that idea :smallwink: . It could be done in the stick-figure/comic style (perhaps in a similar fashion to the Ultimate Spiderman game) using the OotS classes and world. I'd buy it.

[Emperor Ing]

Yeah, one problem, the OOTS chars would look really retarted in 3D, unless your thinking sidescroller, but the movie would work. Just make Rich the executive producer or director. Problem solved!

[EntilZha]

Make it a big mini-serie, with episode lenght being like Star Wars : Clone War's.

something about 5 minutes/episode, posted on the internet, and sold in a DvD compilation.

Make it follow the original plot line, with mostly the same jokes, but add a few that fits well a movie, and remove those that are comic-strip-specific (Thog's comment about Nale having left for only 3 panels jumps to mind)

(oh, damn.. will be hard to make Haley speak in cryptogram)

That could work. Jonathan Ian Mathers put his Foamy the Squirrel (http://www.illwillpress.com) cartoons in a DVD compilation and it did fine.

However, I think there should be a different storyline, unrelated to the online comic, just as the Dragon magazine OOTS were not related them.

[Pyro]

Hollywood Kills almost every movie it touches that was "based" off of something like a book or a comic with very few exceptions. One very good example of them killing a story was "Eragon":smallfurious: . If an oots movie was to be made then it should be either made by The Giant or the fans.

No they didn't kill Eragon. They beat its corpse over and over again.

[Sye216]

No they didn't kill Eragon. They beat its corpse over and over again.
Yeah, my brother went to see it, and he came back home and started boiling over with rage. And when someone said she liked the Eragon movie, he was shocked into silence before he asked if she had read the book. And when she said no, he replied, "That explains it." [\Off-topic]

I don't really know if I'd see it. I think that most movie prroducers would turn down the idea of stick figuring. (Unless they did an animated movie like Shrek. Imagine: 3D stick figures) But I'm not sure if I'd really watch it. And I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not...(I'm indescisive. Sue me.)

[Snipers_Promise]

Make it a big mini-serie, with episode lenght being like Star Wars : Clone War's.

something about 5 minutes/episode, posted on the internet, and sold in a DvD compilation.

Make it follow the original plot line, with mostly the same jokes, but add a few that fits well a movie, and remove those that are comic-strip-specific (Thog's comment about Nale having left for only 3 panels jumps to mind)

(oh, damn.. will be hard to make Haley speak in cryptogram)

I think Rooster Teeth would be up to the task.

[Shatteredtower]

Why does everybody insist on adapting stories to new forms of media?At least three reasons.

First, because it's something nearly all of us have done since childhood. Most of us have played at being someone else more than once before the age of ten. Eventually, most of us become too self-conscious to continue doing it, but pretend we've just outgrown it.

Second, people do it because it often works. For a few examples, consider Salome or the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, both of which are recreations of earlier literary works in a different form.

Third, every interpretation of a work brings something new to it. It won't always be better, but even when you prefer the original, it's seldom entirely worse either. Too often, fan (and sometimes author) entitlement refuses to let people see that. It blinds people to the fact that a given movie cannot violate the book it's based upon. It's impossible. The only thing the movie can do is convince people who were never going to read the book in the first place to go on not reading it.

I'm happy to have seen what Neil Gaiman did with Snow White, Alfred Lord Tennyson with Ulysses, Shakespeare with an older tale about a Moor, and C.S. Lewis with a collection of religious writings. It doesn't always work out, but that's no reason to avoid the attempt.


Besides, there's nobody in the world who could play the part of Vaarsuvius, androgony and all.

I'm told Sarah Bernhardt did just fine in the role of Hamlet, for example. I'm still waiting for the day someone let's the like of Chow Yun Fat play Napolean or Churchill -- or Roy, for that matter.

And why not? Characters are not defined by the colour of the performer's skin, or their gender, or their physical proportions. If Kathy Bates or Sandra Oh wanted to play V, the last thing I'd care about is whether or not either of them "looked right for the part." Cast someone over six feet tall as Belkar, and someone under five and a half as Roy for all I care. It's not like that it requires much effort on an audience's part to assume that someone six feet tall is playing a three foot tall character -- not if they could accept Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot or Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.

And no, there is no difference. We pretend there is, but there isn't. It's all accepting that someone is pretending to be something they most clearly are not.

[Grim Oswald]

And why not? Characters are not defined by the colour of the performer's skin, or their gender, or their physical proportions. If Kathy Bates or Sandra Oh wanted to play V, the last thing I'd care about is whether or not either of them "looked right for the part." Cast someone over six feet tall as Belkar, and someone under five and a half as Roy for all I care. It's not like that it requires much effort on an audience's part to assume that someone six feet tall is playing a three foot tall character -- not if they could accept Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot or Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man.

Eh? :smallconfused:

So you're saying if the person playing V had...erhm..."assets" the size of bowling bowls, it wouldn't matter? Wouldn't affect the, erm, you know, androgyny joke at all? In which case there's a little thing called suspension of disbelief that I don't think you've acquainted yourself with yet.

Sounds to me like you're saying we could just pick out a dozen good actors at random then and assign them random roles. Actually, why limit it to people? Why not get a chipmunk to play Xykon? It's not much effort on an audience's part to assume it's actually a humanoid skeleton. In fact, why make a movie at all? We'll just get people to look at a banana and let their imagination do the rest. :smalltongue:

[Shatteredtower]

So you're saying if the person playing V had...erhm..."assets" the size of bowling bowls, it wouldn't matter? Wouldn't affect the, erm, you know, androgyny joke at all? In which case there's a little thing called suspension of disbelief that I don't think you've acquainted yourself with yet.You've got that backward.

If I could accept Sandy Duncan as Peter Pan, despite the fact that I could clearly see that she was a woman and promptly forget that fact, then I am clearly practicing suspension of disbelief.

People who need the actor to look the part are not. Looking is no different than any other form of imitation. A child doesn't have a problem understanding that, so why should we accept that sort of laziness from an adult?


Sounds to me like you're saying we could just pick out a dozen good actors at random then and assign them random roles.You bet. It's called acting for a reason.


Actually, why limit it to people?That's a fair question. You just have to find a chipmunk that can consistently put in a good performance.

There's simply no excuse for a small-minded audience.

[Grim Oswald]

OK, so let me get this straight: we could have Pamela Anderson play Belkar wielding two paper clips for knives and a completely empty field be Azure City and it wouldn't be a problem because we can just ignore the fact that it's a friggen field and friggen woman and friggen paper clip?

I'm obviously interpreting your posts wrong, because you can't honestly tell me that's not ridiculous. :smallwink:

[Ithekro]

Shatteredtower's views work in theater. They don't work very well for motion pictures due to the wider range of audience one generally will have, unless effects are involved to compensate more towards the intended character's physical description. However there is a limit to suspension of disbelief. One must have capable actors to pull of such a suspension of disbelief, and even then it becomes more difficult if you get farther away from body type, if the body type is required for the humor to work correctly. While it maybe possible to cast a rather buxom woman as V, it is harder for the audience to take her as being borderline male or female (without heavy use of something to keep her bust flattened away) than for someone with a smaller chest size.(Peter Pan come to mind, since there are very few males that play that role). Similarly it would be difficult to cast a huge body builder shaped man as V, as V is suppose to be an elf and wizard (elves are generally cast as fair build and wizards tend to be fragile), as well as there generally not being a question of what sex the character is based on human terms at least, if that joke is to remain.

That said, a stage production using seemingly miscast people can work for extra humor, but that depends on the writing more than the casting. Having a six foot tall dwarf can work, it just looks strange, or requires the man to be somehow low to the stage at all times (which can be painful on the ankles or knees). In a modern motion picture, with special effects and digital technology, having a six foot man play a dwarf if not only possible, but it has been done successfully (Lord of the Rings).

Now if you are thinking of voice acting, then it really doesn't matter at all what they look like. As long as they can act the part.

[Shatteredtower]

OK, so let me get this straight: we could have Pamela Anderson play Belkar wielding two paper clips for knives and a completely empty field be Azure City and it wouldn't be a problem because we can just ignore the fact that it's a friggen field and friggen woman and friggen paper clip?1. If I could physically transform Pamela Anderson to look like a tough halfling male and give her a voice just perfect for the part -- do you think she'd do a good job of it?

If not, then you were not asking an honest question. If so, then her appearance was never an issue in the first place.

2. Props and location are different than performers. The only thing a prop can contribute to a performance is likeness. That's it. It doesn't matter how much money you spend on that paper clip -- sixteen million dollars isn't going to make it as effective a dagger as an actual dagger.

Picking actors for likeness limits the results every time -- which is why the casting for Rain Man didn't limit the audition for Dustin Hoffman's role in Rain Man to autistic performers. Picking props for likeness does not.

I could accept Patrick Stewart as Charles Xavier, despite the fact that I know casting could have found a bald, paraplegic actor for the part, because I know he's a good performer. I could accept Sean Maher and Summer Glau as Simon and River Tam, despite the fact that they don't look in the least Chinese, because I liked their performances. I'd have liked them better if I knew that Chinese-American actors in America could get the same level of consideration, however, but that's another subject.

[rgoodfellow]

I don't know about anyone else but do any of you think a OOTS movie would be a HORRIBLE idea, since we all know Hollywood wouldn't let The Giant have any say in his brain child. The way I see it one of three things will happen-
1. D&D movie-enough said.
2.Childrens movie-Where to make it children suitable they make Belkar nice, destroy any form of bad guy character development, stop Roy from dieing, stop Miko from being Miko, and get rid of anything that would get it a rating higher than PG.
3.They change the animation style and everything else til' it is not even OOTS anymore, I mean they won't use the comics plot, they will change all the characters, and try to make it something people who know nothing of OOTS like, but fans hate.

Anyone disagree, agree, or wonder why the heck I am posting this?

What the heck are you posting this?

[Em Blackleaf]

I don't think I'd like a movie.

I would not like V's gender to be somewhat "exposed" by a some thing as simple as a voice or boobs (or lack of which).

[Tiak]

Oots would make a much better TV show than a movie. it could be animated in the same style as the strips. having it on adult swim on cartoon network might be a good idea too. (if someone has already said this i would just like to say i do not have the time to read both pages of this thread)

[fractal]

I don't think I'd like a movie.

I would not like V's gender to be somewhat "exposed" by a some thing as simple as a voice or boobs (or lack of which).
I'm not sure if that's true. Humans have a natural tendency/desire to categorize people in terms of gender; it's often frustrating when we cannot.

The undecipherable gender joke itself might not carry over as well in a movie, and there's a good chance the audience would simply enjoy the movie better if they could tell what gender V. was. Certainly the movie wouldn't fall into the same continuity as the comic, so it's not like it would be a spoiler.

That said, there are plenty of examples of androgenous characters in movies. It can be done. Typically they turn out to be someone of one gender pretending to be another, however. That's because, in the long run, the audience wants to know.

[Sigbru]

Garfield is wonderfull strip, but a horrible movie...
maybe oots could be a cartoon or something, but the comic will always be the better

[Raiser Blade]

I think that a movie wouldnt be that great

I mean its a webcomic it is funny as a webcomic but most of the jokes just wont be the same


also just for the record i think V is a girl:smallconfused:

[Ash Williams]

I like the Clone Wars-style short episodes as well, but only if they're animated (and Elan sounds like Xander from Drawn Together; I know E's not gay, but that's how I've always imagined him sounding).

And for the record, I think Vaarsuvius is a female also (I'm not gonna start a huge argument here; I just want to state that).

[Yeril]

I think a short series of flash movies? or yeah very short cartoons would be good.


the voices would need to be Perfect though.