Slashdot Mirror


Ubisoft Launches Movie Studio To Make Movies of Its Games

Variety reports that Ubisoft, the game studio behind Assassin's Creed, the Tom Clancy games and the recent Prince of Persia titles, has launched Ubisoft Motion Pictures for the purpose of turning its game franchises into TV and movie franchises. "Ubisoft's Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was brought to the bigscreen by Jerry Bruckheimer, with Jake Gyllenhaal in the lead. The 2010 pic grossed about $335 million worldwide. The publisher started expanding its reach in 2007, when it launched Ubisoft Digital Arts, a computer animation studio, which created Avatar's ground-breaking 3D vidgame. A year later, it acquired Montreal-based visual effects house Hybride Technologies."

5 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. New Ubisoft theater requirements by fox171171 · · Score: 4, Funny

    When you go to the theater you have to get RFID chipped, and if the scanners lose the internet connection, the movie won't play.

  2. Re:A good sign? by Sulphur · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I read the headline and face palmed myself so hard I passed out.

    Had you used face palm oil, then your hand would have slid off harmlessly.

  3. Re:A common mistake ... by Animats · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Game development and movie development are different skills, one is long duration interactive entertainment and the other is short duration passive entertainment.

    True. However, the game-to-movie direction today has more promise than the movie-to-game direction. Games made from movie franchises tend to be track rides - you will follow the plot. On the other hand, a free-play game provides known characters and settings on which a screenwriter can build a plot - even when the game barely has one. ("Prince of Persia" comes to mind.)

  4. Great - I Can Avoid A Whole Class Of Movies by rally2xs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a moviegoer that "sees everything that is not too dumb for words" I avoid movies that have anything to do with videogames because, so far, they universally suck. There's nothing remotely believable about the movies, the are all computer video effects and no real story that makes much of any sense. Everything is simply game-play on the screen, and I don't get to have any fun with it.

    Coming in a close second is "movies having anything to do with existent toys", which would mean things like the transformer series. Saw a trailer for the upcoming transformers movie last night. Nope, gonna miss that one, too.

    Wanna sell me a movie ticket? Tell me a story, preferably with MOVIE STARS in it, not some bozo I've never heard of before that, incidentally, doesn't know squat about acting. Last night's movie for me was Fast Five. At least we have a star or 2, and some fun car chases. Yeah, its terminally stupid, too, but at least fun to look at.

    Best movie in the theater at the moment? The Conspirator. Now, THAT tells a story. Water for Elephants, 2nd best, and ditto, tells a story.

    Surprisingly, the comic book series have proved very entertaining, although any new movie having anything to do with anything from DC comics is getting a pass as long as the writers think that Superman should somehow be ashamed of being a US citizen, and wishes to renounce that citizenship. They can all go pound sand...

    1. Re:Great - I Can Avoid A Whole Class Of Movies by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wanna sell me a movie ticket? Tell me a story, preferably with MOVIE STARS in it, not some bozo I've never heard of before that, incidentally, doesn't know squat about acting.

      One of the last few movies that Ive seen for the first time recently had absolutely no one I had ever heard of, and it was probably one of the best movies I have ever seen. The movie was Winter's Bone. It shows that having a big name star in a movie does not make the movie good; in many cases, the big name actor either overshadows everything else, or simply plays every character exactly the same, without even subtle changes from film to film.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil