Watch_Dogs Movie Seeks Serious Star Power

Watch_Dogs Movie Seeks Serious Star Power

Tom Cruise in Top Gun

Ubisoft has created an online poll asking fans to provide their input on which Hollywood star should play Aiden Pearce in the likely inevitable Watch_Dogs film adaptation.

Watch_Dogs is an upcoming open-world stealth-action adventure from Far Cry 3 developer Ubisoft Montreal. Critical and consumer response to what the firm has shown us of the title has been largely positive, and it's pretty apparent that Ubisoft would like Watch_Dogs to become its next big franchise, following in the wake of Assassin's Creed and Splinter Cell.

It should come as little surprise then, to hear that Watch_Dogs is currently being developed for film by Ubisoft's movie division. That project appears to be in the very early stages however, as Ubisoft recently created an online poll asking potential fans of the game (which, we remind you, none of these people have played) who they'd like to see portray Watch_Dogs protagonist Aiden Pearce on the big screen.

Your choices are as diverse as Hollywood itself: You've got some pretty white guys in their 40s, a few pretty white guys in their 20s, and Andrew Garfield (who is a fine actor, but not the sex symbol the others on that list are). Tom Cruise is currently leading the pack by a major margin, with Edward Norton taking second place honors.

What can we infer from this? Nothing concrete, sadly. Ubisoft is apparently looking for ideas on who to cast in the Watch_Dogs film, and having run out of concepts of their own, the company has turned to the general public. Good idea? Bad idea? Who cares. Odds are pretty solid that almost none of the actors on that list would agree to star in Watch_Dogs, simply by virtue of the amount of cash they demand for an acting gig. Ubisoft is a big name in the videogames world, but it seems very unlikely that the company could afford to hire Tom Cruise for a film based on a game that has yet to hit retail.

Think of it this way: What happens if Ubisoft hires a big-name actor, spending $20-plus million on their contract, only to have Watch_Dogs utterly fail on release? What if the game is a buggy mess, that's savaged by critics and ignored by fans? Obviously that works out nicely for the actor scoring the quick payday, but it makes very little business sense on Ubisoft's part.

Source: Polls

Permalink

Is it me or do most of these movie adaptions never get past the pre-prodcution phase? there's always talk of this or that movie being made, but nothing ever comes of it.

The game isn't even out yet and they're ALREADY talking about a movie for it? ........Why?

I have no idea since the game hasnt come out, at least for Assassins Creed you can give the Desmond role to Adam Sandler and lip-sync the whole thing

Tom Cruise is waaaaay too crazy to play a modern vigilante that goes around screwing with street lights for an hour before pasting embarrassing private information on a billboard. In fact, he's too crazy to play anyone but Tom Cruise, as he does in all of his movies.

So that's a pick of one of two Spidermen, a Superman, an Ironman or a Hulk?

Honestly though, how are we supposed to know who we'd want if we haven't even played the damn game yet, Ubisoft?

Earnest Cavalli:

Watch_Dogs is an upcoming open-world stealth-action adventure from Deus Ex: Human Revolution developer Ubisoft Montreal

Wasn't Deus Ex made by Eidos Montreal?

And whilst the chances of me going to see a Watch Dogs film are slim, if Tiny Tom is in the movie I know I definitely won't go to see it. I wouldn't want to fund a cult after all.

Right...another video game movie...with Tom Cruise in it? That is...opposite to interesting actually. It kinda feels like Ubisoft is going crazy lately with IPs.
"We only make new games if we can make them into franchises and also only if we can make a movie out of it!"

It probably wont surprise me if they suddenly announce that they are making a Rayman movie...if they haven't already.

CriticalMiss:
Wasn't Deus Ex made by Eidos Montreal?

It SO was! Apologies.

They want to make multiple sequels, a movie and to generally make a franchise out of this and it hasn't even been released. I now kinda want this to fail just because of their sheer arrogance and hubris.

The final lines of this article basically cover my feelings. The game isn't a success yet. This is like a Schrodinger's Cat situation. The game exists as both a total failure and an acclaimed masterpiece until either one comes true, or whatever may occur in between. I get it though. Any corporation has to move forward as if their current endeavor is going to be a success. But I have this little Homonculus in my head telling me that they are being far too presumptuous. Part of that is probably because I don't really like Ubisoft as a publisher.

Bleidd Whitefalcon:
The game isn't even out yet and they're ALREADY talking about a movie for it? ........Why?

You just read my mind.

Ubisoft really seems to be going full steam ahead with throwing all their movies into development - this is quite a gamble, not just because Watch_Dogs isn't out yet, and as such we know neither whether it is a hit or what about it makes it a hit - it's also a gamble because none of Ubisoft's movie projects are anywhere close to happening.

Neither we nor they have any idea whether these games are going to successfully translate to movies - they could completely bomb, and even if they do go well, there'll likely be some obvious avenues of improvement after they start coming out - but they won't be able to be addressed if all these game-movies are well into production.

Not having played the game, I have no idea who would be a good idea to play Aiden Pearce.

But yeah, this movie stuff? I don't know where Ubisoft is getting all this confidence from.

Bleidd Whitefalcon:
The game isn't even out yet and they're ALREADY talking about a movie for it? ........Why?

This...Plus, don't they know that there is a Watch_Dogs TV show already out? It's called Person of Interest....

Joseph Gordon-Levitt would be perfect. A suave, black-haired, nonchalant action dude in his early 30's already equipped with some action movie experience under his belt. More well known than Andrew Garfield and less well known than Tom Cruise, he's not a household name or a recurring face in the movies, he's perfect middle ground. He's also talented, so that's a plus.

Dylan McDermott. He already looks like Aiden Pierce and can play that thin line between good and evil pretty well. Seems like a pretty good fit.

I don't understand. If you have a baked-in appeal to a (fairly) wide audience, why not just hire cheaper (and still just as talented) actors and dispense with the $20 Million "marketing" ploy of hiring a big name actor?

You can't do this with any other genre except video game adaptions, because people usually don't give two fucks about your movie.

Make a good movie adaption; which you can now that you're not wasting $20 million on one actor and actually produce a film that, while it may make less money at the box office, will actually turn a profit because it cost way less AND you haven't spent $300 million marketing a steaming pile of shit.

How many box office flops does it take for Hollywood to get it?

We barely even know the character yet, how the hell are we supposed to know what actor will be best to play him?

Wow, i didnt think it was possible after the "We only make franchises we can whore out" announcment but i just lost even more interest in Watchdogs.

I vote Rob Scheider plays him!

I'm still disappointed that Aiden Pierce, apparently having been born in Belfast, doesn't have a really thick Northern Irish accent:

That would've been hilarious.
And also, y'know, would've made him stand out from the legions of other white, male, American protagonists.

MCerberus:
Tom Cruise is waaaaay too crazy to play a modern vigilante that goes around screwing with street lights for an hour before pasting embarrassing private information on a billboard. In fact, he's too crazy to play anyone but Tom Cruise, as he does in all of his movies.

Apparently you haven't seen Jack Reacher then. "Modern vigilante" is a pretty accurate description for that character. Anyway, seems odd to me that Ubisoft would jump right into producing a movie, before the game is even released.

Why can't video games just have respect for themselves? Why do we need the movie critics to like us? What, do you want peter travers, J hoberman, and Stephen Hunter to give a game 5 stars and the number one movie in america rating before we stop this hollywood nonsense?

That's a dmb ting to ask a world of people who haven't even seen the chracter in their total element yet. Ask again one the game's actually out Ubisoft. After the question "do you even want a watchdogs movie?"

Bleidd Whitefalcon:
The game isn't even out yet and they're ALREADY talking about a movie for it? ........Why?

My thoughs exactly, good sir. The overall concept is good, but the Hollywood take on it will probably be shitty.

Captcha: big screen

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.