Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Tom Clancy's The Division Colon Movie Film for Netflix
#1
I guess they're finally doing this.

Quote:Netflix has bought distribution to Ubisoft’s “Tom Clancy’s The Division,” a video game adaptation starring Jessica Chastain and Jake Gyllenhaal.

David Leitch, whose credits include “Deadpool 2” and “Hobbs & Shaw,” is directing the project, which was announced Monday at E3 at the Los Angeles Convention Center. Rafe Judkins is adapting the screenplay.

The story is set in the near future with a pandemic virus spread via paper money on Black Friday, decimating the city of New York and killing millions. By Christmas, what’s left of society has descended into chaos. A group of civilians, trained to operate in catastrophic times, are activated in an attempt to save who and what remains.

87North Productions, Gyllenhaal’s Nine Stories, Chastain’s Freckle Films and Ubisoft Film and Television are producing the film.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/jessi...203238700/
“That which doesn't kill you wasn't done right.”—Khaya Dlanga
Reply
#2
Jake Gyllenhaal in another Ubisoft movie. Will this also secretly be a Assassion's Creed movie like his Prince of Persia was?

The action should be good at least. Seems kind of weird they'd leave off the first John Wick when listing  Leitch's credits.
Reply
#3
Somewhat related: anyone know if Amazon's doing a second season of Jack Ryan?
"Nooj's true feelings on any given subject are unknown and unknowable. He is the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking. He is chaos and destruction and you shall never see his true form." - Merriweather

My Steam ID: yizashigreyspear
Reply
#4
(06-10-2019, 07:58 PM)MichaelM Wrote: Somewhat related: anyone know if Amazon's doing a second season of Jack Ryan?

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-f...on-1186427

Oh, can't seen the whole link. Says it was renewed for a third season, and that's from February of this year.
Reply
#5
I love the Division 2. It's the first truly good and complete looter shooter from launch.

But NOBODY plays Division for the story. No one! This can be a good thing, because it's a clean slate. Plenty of wiggle room to make the story matter.
Reply
#6
(06-10-2019, 07:48 PM)simbob Wrote: Jake Gyllenhaal in another Ubisoft movie. Will this also secretly be a Assassion's Creed movie like his Prince of Persia was?

The action should be good at least. Seems kind of weird they'd leave off the first John Wick when listing  Leitch's credits.

Leitch never 'officially' directed John Wick 1, even though he did co-direct it. DGA rules or whatever.
Reply
#7
Isn't The Division the one with the creepy militaristic undertones? Like, you're playing the army guys who are the creepy authoritarian villains from every zombie and post-apoc story ever, operating as death squads against looters and the general populace?
Reply
#8
(06-11-2019, 09:16 AM)muzman Wrote: Isn't The Division the one with the creepy militaristic undertones?  Like, you're playing the army guys who are the creepy authoritarian villains from every zombie and post-apoc story ever, operating as death squads against looters and the general populace?

Kinda?  It's like you're exactly that but the 'honorable villain' version and then it turns out that there's even worse, more death-squaddy army guys out there.
Superlaser speaks for me from now on.

-Bart
Reply
#9
(06-11-2019, 09:16 AM)muzman Wrote: Isn't The Division the one with the creepy militaristic undertones?  Like, you're playing the army guys who are the creepy authoritarian villains from every zombie and post-apoc story ever, operating as death squads against looters and the general populace?

A broad generalization that anyone who has played the whole original game knows was clickbait bullshit.
Players play as agents of a secret government agency that is essentially the last option in case of total government and social collapse, and you basically help the army and civilians who are trying to reestablish some sort of order and rule of law after a pandemic collapse.
Yes, your initial enemies are looters and raiders (but they are essentially civilians who are looking only for themselves and refuse to collaborate with others), a gang of crazed sanitation workers who seek to contain the virus no matter what, a huge gang made of escaped convicts and a private military company hired by escaped Wall Street types to protect their stuff, but who become the final enemy of the game as they become a right wing fascist militia.
The second game expands the lore and world, and makes a much better job of detailing it and making things more clear (you have to help military forces and humanitarian aid workers reestablish order and help civilians, you collaborate with civilian factions and help them prosper and rebuild, and so on).
"Dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy."

Xbox Live Gamer Tag: Strider Ryoken / PSN: Kenryo81 /Steam: Ryoken81
Reply
#10
The games are almost weirdly anti political.

I think they knew the imagery of gunning down endless gang bangers from Rykers was inherently so problematic that they outright refuse to suggest any political statement in the plot or characters of any kind. It's very odd.
Reply
#11
(06-12-2019, 03:07 AM)ryoken Wrote: A broad generalization that anyone who has played the whole original game knows was clickbait bullshit.


I don't know where I got it from. Reading a plot synopsis it doesn't seem that appropriate. I might be thinking of another game entirely.

As to its having many interpretations - that wouldn't surprise me. Ubisoft famously say their games have no political interpretation at all! Which is just hilarious in the case of some games where they clearly do. But this game being intentionally vague is probably something they'd bake in too. It's more the PR stance of a company that looked at the gamer political debate landscape and said "We're not getting involved in that at all". Which is understandable.
Reply
#12
(06-12-2019, 05:28 AM)muzman Wrote: I might be thinking of another game entirely.

No, you're thinking of this game. That was certainly the 'hot take' about Division when it was first released. As ryoken said, it's just clickbait, but I am pretty sure you would have read that about the game somewhere.

Ubisoft's "We're not political" stance has enraged the more clickbaity lefty types who basically take great glee in point out any semblance of politics in their games.

I've always taken it as: "Our players and our developers are just not interesting in talking about this bullshit, so we're not going to engage.". It's damn near impossible to not take a stance in any story that can not be interpreted politically, but there's a segment of the new media that delight in writing articles about this stuff and judging appropriately. Ubisoft obviously just doesn't want to get dragged into the muck, as those articles and conversations hardly ever end well for the dev.
Reply
#13
(06-12-2019, 05:54 AM)flint Wrote:
(06-12-2019, 05:28 AM)muzman Wrote: I might be thinking of another game entirely.

No, you're thinking of this game. That was certainly the 'hot take' about Division when it was first released. As ryoken said, it's just clickbait, but I am pretty sure you would have read that about the game somewhere.

Ubisoft's "We're not political" stance has enraged the more clickbaity lefty types who basically take great glee in point out any semblance of politics in their games.

I've always taken it as: "Our players and our developers are just not interesting in talking about this bullshit, so we're not going to engage.". It's damn near impossible to not take a stance in any story that can not be interpreted politically, but there's a segment of the new media that delight in writing articles about this stuff and judging appropriately. Ubisoft obviously just doesn't want to get dragged into the muck, as those articles and conversations hardly ever end well for the dev.

EXCEPT...

There's a better way they could have worded that to save themselves the trouble ("We don't adhere to any particular democrat or republican ideology) , and instead they chose to align themselves with the most whiney, Gamer-gatey, non-committing response   And what makes it all disingenuous is that Ubisoft keeps on using politically loaded imagery and plotlines to sell their shit games all while maintain how they're not political.  Of course they fucking are--they're using the Tom Clancy brand for god's sakes.  Plots about domestic terrorism or about right-wing bible nuts are political--there is no getting around that.  So either Ubisoft reconciles with that or, and here's a suggestion, maybe not make modern day military shooters if they can't handle it.  Do the Destiny thing and keep that shit in space.
"Why did she do it?"
"Why are you the fucking Police?"

Reply
#14
Yeah, it stretches credulity somewhat when they publish a game about being trapped and hunted in militia country with this sort of imagery


[Image: 35650.jpeg]


But I don't think they care about credulity.  It's about maintaining a company wide policy of "deny and do not engage", the wisdom of such an attitude needs only a quick glance a Bethesda's audience relations to attest.
It's kinda sad that it's like this but it's pragmatic.
Reply
#15
But like I said before, if they had simply just said “this is a work of fiction that doesn’t adhere to any specific ideology” then it would have given them just enough wiggle room for them to get away with it by acknowledging that “yes, our games are political—we just don’t align ourselves with the right or left.

Claiming that your apolitical is an outright lie and opens yourself up to well deserved criticism.
"Why did she do it?"
"Why are you the fucking Police?"

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)