I think that would look pretty freakin goofy.

I despise word to word remakes.


Do something with it.

You can't REmake something that's never been MADE before in the first place.

It's not like the 1992 arcade game had cutscenes. We've never actually SEEN the canon version of things. Ever. Personally, I find that kind of stupid and baffling. They could at least hire some animation studio to make a cheap DVD movie like a lot of other game franchises have.

So you think it would be a good idea if the movie were true to the games?

Yes, I actually do.

Obviously, there are little things that have to be changed when you go from a comic book or a video game to a movie, like a lot of the spandex-y looking costumes need to be changed to something more realistic...but that doesn't mean Johnny Cage should spend the whole thing in a dress shirt and slacks like he did in the first movie, either. Or a beard and sweatshirt like he apparently has in Legacy. He's there to compete in an athletic endeavor, so dress him like someone who fights in kung fu tournaments would actually dress maybe? Like he could have windbreaker pants that look like his pants in the game do, or boxing shorts with his name printed on them, that would look pretty similar to his MK1 outfit, wouldn't it? Sonya could be wearing an olive Army tanktop and camo pants instead of dressed like an aerobics instructor or wearing the titty-vest-that-would-never-exist from MK9, y'know?
There's a way to make them look like themselves without being cartoonish.

And as far as the story, the one that's actually present in the games, from Mythologies to at least Deadly Alliance, it's perfectly solid if you just present it as-written. It's good enough on its own that it certainly doesn't NEED anything changed.
For example, what's up with Liu Kang always being changed to a guy who left the monks and moved to America to become "normal" but then someone was killed and now he wants generic revenge like everybody else? I get that people who just glance over what the bios say and take it as one-dimensional and never THINK about the character motivations would think Liu being this pure hero trained by monks and that's all there is in his origin is boring, but how does changing the character to something the exact opposite of what they are in the games make them better?
There's lots in the real Liu story that can be compelling, like the whole "weight of the world on his shoulders" thing, the pressure of being trained and told since he was young that he's the only one powerful enough to win and save the world, or the fact that he's lived in isolation and is naive and innocent, and he's a pacifist, now forced into death-battles. You could have him, oh, I dunno, actually be SCARED to fight Goro? Since Goro is the guy who killed Earth's last hero and every guy he's fought since then too, and now Liu is the one who has to fight him. And there's of course the Kitana romance, Liu is one of only like three or four characters in the whole of Mortal Kombat who develops a relationship over time with a member of the opposite sex, that alone should be enough to make him an interesting character in a movie without changing his damn backstory.

Hell, there's lots of stuff in his backstory that's never been explored as it is! What's it like to be a pure and chaste guy whose trainer is an alcoholic trickster? Did Liu learn any Drunken Boxing from Bo? Why doesn't he use it? Shouldn't some of that have rubbed off on his personality? And what the hell IS the White Lotus Society and what's it like to be a member? There's obviously SOMETHING a little shady about the group since joining them is the reason he stopped following monk traditions like wearing orange robes and shaving his head, why doesn't anyone ever elaborate on that? (Or hey, maybe letting his hair grow out is just his belated version of teenaged rebellion, the sheltered high-discipline guy developing a wild streak inspired by his sloppy drunken trainer's behavior, I dunno...he's obviously not interested in a vow of chastity either if he's putting the moves on alien princesses...) How about WHY can he turn into the same kind of dragon the Elder Gods do? Where do his powers come from if he's so powerful and chosen one-y that no one but him even stands a chance against badguys like Kahn, it must be something a little more than the same inner-chi everybody else uses...
Look at all these ideas, completely based on the actual canon, that are just falling from the fucking sky right here!

Aang, the main character of Avatar: the Last Airbender (I'm speaking of the cartoon here mind you, not the awful movie adaptation by M. Night Shamawhatever) is basically the same character as the Liu Kang of the games, and that's one of the most popular animated works of the modern era among teens and adults specifically because of the depth of the characters and story, so what the fuck is wrong with Liu Kang that he needs to be an immigrant who wants to avenge someone's death instead of "the only guy in MK1 whose Fatality isn't fatal"?

It's not anywhere near as satisfying to watch a movie that changes everything for no reason as it is to watch the ones that kept as much from the source material as they could like the Avengers flicks or the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The accurate ones also seem to make the most fucking money at the box office (unless your franchise has the ability to give ILM billions of dollars to make giant robots that turn into trucks and planes smash each other to pieces instead of having a story, mind you, but I digress...), so why not follow that example?

Yeah, I agree with you!

I would want a computer animated film. If it's animated, all the props, locations, costumes, etc. can be true to the game. Same with the fatalities. You won't have to worry about poor CG effects mixed in with live action shots.

I think they did a fantastic job with the movie Beowulf. If they could pull something like that off for MK it'd be great.

No actors and/or actresses. No Hollywood-type influence, period. Just NRS hiring consultants who will help them write a GOOD story, action scenes, dialogue, and everything else that is needed to make a movie watchable.

If NRS is in charge of the story writing, and not some dip shit ego driven Hollywood person, they should hire John Tobais so they can keep everything canon. None of this Sub-Zero and Scorpion working together for Shang Tsung CRAP. And we won't have to worry about Quan Chi popping his head in where it doesn't belong... I love Quan Chi, I do, but not anywhere before MK4.

I personally would want to see the story based on the original timeline, while mixing in some of the comics' influence. I didn't like how in the original movie, there were so many frickin' extras hired from what looked to be like WCW/WWE rejects. Hydro, Bo, some of Kano's thugs who traveled with him, Sonya's special forces squad who were captured... all that shit. Let THEM (actual MK characters) be the extras who can die-off in the tournament.

The only thing I can agree with NRS on is combining the story of MK1, MK2, and MK3 into one "happening." That way things wouldn't get so redundant from each film to the next. Stick with one bad guy in one movie era. As long as each "tournament" wasn't rushed like it was in MK2011.

Yeah... a movie like this deserves at least 120 minutes. At LEAST. Opening credits and ending credits do not count.

Here goes your desire to convince me, that you can like adaptation, if not follow canon closely.
And this idea, that "close to canon adaptation" are more succesful, that the ones, that don't...please, it's laughauble. There are a lot of adaptations, that were succesfull and even reached cult classic, while having next to nothing or relatively few things related to the orginal works.
Bttom line: success depends on the quality of the work, not on canonicity of it.

Success in whose opinion? Die-heart fans that shell out all their cash in total support of MK, or the general public who gives a fuck about MK's history and mythology?

Intelligent people understand what "context" is.

This thread is about a different subject than the one we were arguing in, thus I'm talking about different things. In THIS thread, I am talking about fidelity to source material being a boon, particularly when there's a great deal of untapped material in that source material one can draw from to be creative without inventing nonsequitur or contradictory ideas that make characters unrecognizeable and lacking in spirit. In the OTHER thread, I am talking about whether or not I believe K-Tanch has any raw talent as a writer or director and whether or not I think his movie will be any good, based on the example of MK Legacy Season 1. Two different subjects, two different discussions. One of which, you were not a part of until now.

I do believe a more accurate story is a better story when the source material is strong enough to stand on its own feet, I have never denied that, but that doesn't mean I REQUIRE something to be accurate to enjoy it, if the inaccurate thing is still WELL DONE. To claim otherwise is to twist my words, which you really seem to enjoy doing. I think it's pretty obvious you have a personal distaste for me, sir, on account of this arguing about Legacy and adaptations and source material between us is getting a little stalker-y, and it's not the first time I've noticed that happen with you and me the past year or two either. You might want to get over that, on account of the fact that we're complete fucking strangers on the internet and it's just plain weird.
And none of this changes the fact that Kevin Tancharoen is an untalented writer and director - whether his work were accurate or not, it would still be badly written and edited and bland, unmemorable actors cast in the roles..
I also can't think of any of these "cult classic" adaptations you're talking about of comics, games, or books that deviated drastically from what fans wanted/expected but were still as successful as Lord of the Rings and The Avengers. Blade did fairly well for what it was at the time, but it sure as shit didn't do Avengers bank, and I would definitely make the argument that Blade's source material is shit and the movie's changes were complete improvements.

Never mind the fact that he is a beginner at his job.

And you are not qualified to make such a call at a glance. None of us are.

He's shown no particular growth in skill in season 2, despite being more experienced, having more time, and having more money than he was or did in season 1. There's no reason to believe he'll suddenly magically become a completely different person with a completely different skillset between now and the movie, considering the movie is probably only two years away. I am so sick of the only counter-argument anyone comes up with being a repetition of these "He can do better, he just needs more blank" excuses. What PROOF do you have that that's true? Where has he shown the capacity to get better? Why defend someone whose work hasn't earned it? Is he a friend of yours? If so, tell him I got some questions that need answering and to not be afraid, they're not that hard.

And exactly what qualifications do you think it takes to be able to judge dialogue, or acting, or to tell when the plot makes no fucking sense because the director has never given any indication of WHY some things are happening in the ancient past and others are happening in the modern day, and yet they are happening to the SAME characters, who as far as we know are humans and age normally, since nothing ever tells us otherwise?

Both actually. It depends largely on fans ability to accept different approach, without going into "crazy histerics" mode.
And when it comes to large scale projects success with the general audience is much more important, than pleasing fans and closely following canons, because in the end it is general audience, that brings the money.
Hint: if you are consider yourself fan and buy some rare MK figurine it doesn't make much difference to the franchise as a whole. So, fans support is important, but not really something, that decides destiny of the franchise in the big picture.
Creators should strive to maintain fine line between making project both acceptable to the new people and maintain its core elements. The first is much more important, since some stuff in the franchise, which fans take for granted, can be very cryptic and confusing to the unfamilliar auditory. The movie based on the book or game should be understandable without any kind of familliarity with the source material. Otherwise it is a bad adaptation.


Now, I am part of it. Whatcha gonna do?


1) There is no need to twist your words. Knowing your behavior in the past, I just do some logical conclusions.
2) My certain disliking of you is coming from the fact, that I have low tolerance for the people who rather narrow-minded and accept their own vision as the only one true thing, no matter logic and circumstances.
3) You act as if you ended up in internet few days ago. Please...


He is not the best writer, I give you that. He certainly needs someone to improve his dialogues and make sense of some storyline moments. Neverthless he has a good ability to establish atmosphere and potentially interesting characters.
Now, where I disagree is about "bland, unmemorable actors" and editing. Both were very nice in the MKL2. If not the strange fighting scenes and awkward dialogue it would have been much better.


For a smart person, you claim to be, you must understand that comparing Blade and the Avengers is a very stupid idea.

Well fuck, dude, Blade's the only "cult classic" I could think of that's an adaptation of something off the top of my head. You're the one who said what you said, I'm just shooting at the dark trying to understand what the fuck you meant by it.
And the acting in Legacy II absolutely was forgettable at best. Most of the actors were certainly competent in their roles, but none of them will be remembered for any of this years down the road, which is exactly the same as how I feel about the acting in Season 1. Van Dien's Johnny Cage probably WOULD have been the best, if 75% of his lines weren't "fuck". (And yes, I realize the irony of the guy who swears the most on the board complaining about the swearing, but I'm not a character in a TV series, what I say doesn't have to be good dialogue.)
Speaking of user behavior, how's it okay for you to make "logical conclusions" about me based on your biased mischaracterizations of my behavior, but when I make "logical conclusions" about Tancharoen's future work based on detailed and reasoned critiques of his past and present work, I'm somehow not being fair?

Was your monologue written by the same people, that worked on the dialogue in the MKL2? Too many "fucks", dude.
From the top of my mind I can name also Total Recall. Maybe I'll be able to name more later.


I don't think that actors from the web-series, can be as popular with everyone as their counterparts from the feature-length movie.


The problem is your "reasoned" critics was too similar to the fanboish rant.

...is a pretty terrible flick, IMO. And almost nobody even knows that it's based on a book. I'm pretty sure people just like it because it's got Arnold Schwarzenegger being Arnold Schwarzenegger, not to mention a chick with three tits.



Actors in a webseries CAN give memorable performances. It just so happens that the actors in this webseries did not. I have in the other thread repeatedly named other web-based media by other creators where the characters are very well written and the actors playing them are very memorable.

Not casting better actors or giving them meatier, funnier, or catchier material to work with is a failure of the director.


Your unreasoned bias is showing once again.
You never responded to, and barely even acknowledged the existence of, the bulk of my criticisms, which all had to do with writing, acting, or directing quality, you just keep spitting the same drivel over and over about how I'm obsessed with canon even though I wasn't even talking about canon.

Hit reply when I meant to edit, my bad.

RedSumac and Razor, you guys are a bit off topic. What you say to... agree to disagree? Or just take your debate to a MKL thread?

Well we were having it there. Sumac's the one who stalked me over here and brought the whole argument with him, so I think it's up to him whether or not we can stop shitting up this thread with an off-topic argument.

Hellraiser, Candyman, Blade Runner, Dredd, The Thing, Re-Animator, A Boy and His Dog, Fight Club...

Those are mostly true to the source material, whereas Sumac was talking about movies that deviated drastically but were still successful and popular. Hellraiser was even made by the same guy who wrote the story in the first place.

Also, I've never actually heard of "A Boy and his Dog", so I gotta contest whether or not it actually qualifies as a "cult classic".

Neverthethless its has minor cult following, like Blade. Your opinion on the movie is irrelevant in this matter.


I never said anything about perfomance. Just about popularity. Please, read more carefully and don't twist my words. :p


I already said everything about it in the rellevant theme. It's not my problem that you haven't noticed that.

On the contrary, you yourself said "success depends on the quality of the work". And quality is a matter of opinion. The past several days, everything we have been discussing has revolved around my opinion of the quality of the work in MK Legacy (and your insistence that my opinion is all about continuity-fidelity, while I continually repeat to seemingly deaf ears that my opinions are a critique of the writing, directing, and acting.)

And that particular argument about "cult classics" started as a debate over whether or not adaptations that deviate are as "satisfying" (my words at the time) or make as much money as the films that capture the spirit of the source, with the primary examples of movies that stayed mostly true to the original material and were both high in quality and extremely high in box office returns being Lord of the Rings and The Avengers.
That establishes that there were three criteria involved in the discussion: Fidelity to source material, quality of the movie itself, and how much money it made at the box office. Then you added "cult classic" status as a way to circumvent the third criteria, I assume because you couldn't think of very many adaptations that have made top-ten-list level money. (Or at least, ones that have done so after deviating drastically from the source.)

If I contest that Total Recall is NOT high in quality, that clearly means I disagree with your claim that it's a valid example of something that was satisfying and successful despite not following the source material. I can give you "successful", because other people liked it enough that it made a profit (though again, I say that the only reason it made such a profit is people will pay just to see Arnold be Arnold and say dumb things like "get your ass to Mars" in that goofy accent of his.), but I cannot concede to it being a "satisfying" film to watch because I am not so easily amused by the mere presence of the Governator.

As an added bonus, I have never read the story Total Recall is based on, I'm completely incapable of feeling one way or the other about whether or not it was true to the source, or of knowing what ways it deviated from the source. All I know is how good or bad it is completely on its own merits. So when I say that I think it's a truly awful film, you know that I'm not saying that because it didn't match up with Philip K. Dick's work, I'm saying it because I thought the movie was just plain fuckin' wretched.



I, however, WAS talking about performance the entire time we were having that little tangent-discussion about whether or not the actors in Legacy were memorable. It's not my fault you repeatedly change or ignore the content of my posts.
Linden Ashby, Chris Lambert, Trevor Goddard, etc. weren't memorable in the '95 movie just because they were in "a movie". The mere act of being in a webseries does not automatically cancel out the ability to create a lasting impression. That's absurd.
Sure, if you meant that they're less memorable because less people are watching to do the remembering, that WOULD be valid, except 1) you never specifically said that, and 2) when I talk about memorability, the audience I'm expecting to do the remembering doesn't have to be the entire fuckin' world, I'm talking about us and people like us specifically, anyone who HAS or WILL have seen both the movie and the webseries by the time it's all said and done..
The actors in Legacy absolutely could have been good enough to say or do something that would live on in our minds forever, if they had better material and were more charismatic performers. Which is why I say Van Dien came closest. He clearly IS a charismatic performer. He just wasn't given lines good enough that we'll remember anything specific about him in a couple years' time. If any of his lines are remembered, it'll be the ones copied straight out of MK9 dialogue, not anything Tancharoen came up with on his own.

There's one particularly disturbing issue about most of the arguments I've heard up until this point never address, well, that's not entirely true. For the most part, there's a huge underestimation of the simple fact that what you get in the games is a bare-bones outline of events that take place from conflict to conflict (Instead of tournaments, because the only "official" tournament in the series is the first game). There's a bare-minimum preface that introduces the general plot, followed by the character's bio, which then ends with their ending. Nothing really became too extensive or fleshed out until Deadly Alliance, but the series had begun to seriously decline by that point, so it's too little to late in my opinion.

Anyway, I'd like to demonstrate with a faint outline my point using some of the game introductions from this website. Mind you, I'm just using this as reference material to expand on my point.

Trilogy:



Now, let's fill in some of the blanks, shall we? It's always been a well known fact that the tournament which would eventually become Mortal Kombat existed before the Shaolin (White Lotus?) made an appeal to the elder gods. What is the purpose of this original, mysterious tournament? It may offer a key piece of two of the most prominent characters', Liu Kang and Kung Lao, storylines. Perhaps the purpose of the White Lotus was originally to subvert a stray sect of Shaolin when the knowledge of Outworld's inevitable invasion prevented or evolved the nature of their internal conflict. This might provide an excellent chance to explain the tension, if any future scripts would allow, between Liu and Kung. Liu being from that stray sect (Lack of traditional Shaolin traits in apparel and practice via martial arts, etc.), and Kung Lao from the traditional brance, etc.

That also beckons the question, if it was the "wise men of the east" who perceived the threat and were originally given the task of defending Earth, how did the conflict become global, that is to say, how is it that warriors from across the globe came to be involved, and what was the Shaolin's reaction to their participation, becoming introduced to various attitudes and cultures so suddenly? Enter Raiden, expanding his role in the tournament in a way that might be blatantly obvious to the die hard fans, but never been brought up before.

I don't want to turn this into a rant, but see how this could provide more than enough expansion on a minimal introduction from the game using several of it's most popular and certainly recognizable characters. Man, I might like to do a story treatment of my own now. :)