Duke Nukem Movie

[Nukkus]

Originally Posted by DNV

This is my body and my head. I look like younger than guys of my age. I will be 19 in two days!

i think the main problem is you look too friendly. you need to look totally pissed off, and give the classic Duke sneer.

[JobivanHiob]

http://www.gamecyte.com/scott-miller...ke-movie-fears

[Mr.Fibbles]

So, by building a storyverse for Duke Nukem, we’re bringing that franchise into modern times. A lot of this is going to be seen in Duke Nukem Forever, because we have several key characters besides Duke, including Bombshell and General Graves. And Duke’s personality and history will be more prominent in the game.

Confirmed by the man inside. . .Bombshell and Graves are in, Duke has depth. (or more depth).

Aside from the DNF tidbit, this article is rather fascinating. I didn't know that they had a script in place in 98 but I am glad actually that they ditched it.

[Cybopath]

Your right, but someone needs to break the curse. Theirs a lot of comic book adaptions that suck too but then someone comes along and gets it.

[Cybopath]

Why all the talk of some big name actor or a muscular wrestler who's never set foot in a movie studio? We need a guy who can be Duke from the inside out not a big name to over shadow the character.

I think this guy is bad ass, check this link you'll see what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arlynK4wKvc

[Parkar]

Originally Posted by Cybopath

Why all the talk of some big name actor or a muscular wrestler who's never set foot in a movie studio? We need a guy who can be Duke from the inside out not a big name to over shadow the character.

I think this guy is bad ass, check this link you'll see what I mean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arlynK4wKvc

That movie is awesome but I don't think he would fit Duke at all. For some reason I have always seen the doom marine ever since the first time I saw a picture of the guy.

[Cybopath]

Originally Posted by Parkar

That movie is awesome but I don't think he would fit Duke at all. For some reason I have always seen the doom marine ever since the first time I saw a picture of the guy.

He makes me think of Bruce Campbell on steroids, which is perfect for Duke. But serious improvement on any ex-wrestlers anyway.

[prophecy holder]

Not jumping to any conclusions, but i bet the movie will bomb.

[Cybopath]

I hope by create a storyverse they mean expand on whats already set and not start all over again. Ignoring the original source is what makes Doom, Resident Evil etc etc all suck ass.

[MrBlackCat]

Originally Posted by prophecy holder

Not jumping to any conclusions, but i bet the movie will bomb.

Why do you think that?

MrBlackCat

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by Cybopath

I hope by create a storyverse they mean expand on whats already set and not start all over again. Ignoring the original source is what makes Doom, Resident Evil etc etc all suck ass.

I hope they'll drop the crap shallow terminology. Create a universe and then make a movie. This contrived idea of a story verse seems like a narrow and stock way of doing things. The 80s action movies that Duke comes from didnt have a storyverse. They were great, fun, action/horror/science fiction movies.

[Kalki]

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

I hope they'll drop the crap shallow terminology. Create a universe and then make a movie. This contrived idea of a story verse seems like a narrow and stock way of doing things.

Wait, what? Do you have a problem with the portmanteau itself or the concept of fleshing out the universe? Or both?

The 80s action movies that Duke comes from didnt have a storyverse. They were great, fun, action/horror/science fiction movies.

The Evil Dead series had a fun mythology that connected the movies. I'd say the same about the Alien and Predator universes and any other successful, multi-part, fantasy-movie series. Even realistic action movies like the Die Hard series had, apart from its central character, a certain continuity in the origins, behavior or motivations of its antagonists.

[Altered Reality]

Originally Posted by prophecy holder

Not jumping to any conclusions, but i bet the movie will bomb.

If the movie has a coherent plot, nostalgics of the action movies from the 80s will hate it for sure. Luckily I'm not one of them.

[Stevey Boy]

Nice one for that, made some interesting reading

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by Kalki

Wait, what? Do you have a problem with the portmanteau itself or the concept of fleshing out the universe? Or both?

Let's get one thing straight, A universe isnt a storyverse. Storyverse is UNIVERSE-LITE. Its the way its being advertised with such confidence that bothers me. Write the damn movie and do it right, thats all im saying. Dont try to be cute about it. Duke is a badass, womanising, ass kicker. Period. If you cant make something that simple work on its own two feet, well, then you just plain shouldnt make Duke Nukem a movie.

I just get the feeling they're going to Resident Evilify or Super Mario this franchise, and I cant say im too eager to see THIS GUY go down that path. Duke is way too awesome to screw him up like that.

Originally Posted by Kalki

The Evil Dead series had a fun mythology that connected the movies. I'd say the same about the Alien and Predator universes and any other successful, multi-part, fantasy-movie series. Even realistic action movies like the Die Hard series had, apart from its central character, a certain continuity in the origins, behavior or motivations of its antagonists.

Evil Dead had very little background written on paper, except for the Khandarians, nothing was certain in the ED series. For example the books name changes across the series. Thats not a well defined and researched mythos.

The alien and predator series are not fantasy. They're science fiction. and there are plenty of examples of inconsistancy in that series to. If you're not going to keep things consistant, theres no point in drawing up any background.

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

If the movie has a coherent plot, nostalgics of the action movies from the 80s will hate it for sure. Luckily I'm not one of them.

No, It has nothing to do with having a coherent plot. Lol... It has to do with forgetting the origins of Duke, which is the 80s action movie. and by the way, what wasnt coherent in RAMBO, COMMANDO, ALIENS, THEY LIVE, PREDATOR, TERMINATOR, DIE HARD or any other action movie that Duke Nukem draws from? They may have over the top moments, or situations going on that stretch believability (I cant think of too many off the top of my head), but they're generally very consistant and they were generally always a success. (They Live, was not a success at first, it became one in the years that followed.)

They're classics because they did story and action well. They had memorable characters, great one liners that became part of pop culture, and they are visually still great to look at. Something I cant say for MOST of the films coming out nowadays.

[Cybopath]

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

No, It has nothing to do with having a coherent plot. Lol... It has to do with forgetting the origins of Duke, which is the 80s action movie. and by the way, what wasnt coherent in RAMBO, COMMANDO, ALIENS, THEY LIVE, PREDATOR, TERMINATOR, DIE HARD or any other action movie that Duke Nukem draws from? They may have over the top moments, or situations going on that stretch believability (I cant think of too many off the top of my head), but they're generally very consistant and they were generally always a success. (They Live, was not a success at first, it became one in the years that followed.)

They're classics because they did story and action well. They had memorable characters, great one liners that became part of pop culture, and they are visually still great to look at. Something I cant say for MOST of the films coming out nowadays.

Correct, people often say a film like Rambo etc has NO plot? It has a simple plot there is a difference, it's streamlined to build up action sequences. If a Duke Nukem movie was to delve into the realms of complicated Sci/Fi Fantasy like The Matrix or LOTR I think it would fall apart. Duke is satire, Duke is pulpy B-Movie fun in the realms of Army of Darkness, Big Trouble In Little China etc.

[Kalki]

Originally Posted by Commando Nukem

Let's get one thing straight, A universe isnt a storyverse. Storyverse is UNIVERSE-LITE. Its the way its being advertised with such confidence that bothers me.

No I don't see where you're getting the "Universe-lite" interpretation from. Care to explain?

Evil Dead had very little background written on paper, except for the Khandarians, nothing was certain in the ED series. For example the books name changes across the series. Thats not a well defined and researched mythos.

The alien and predator series are not fantasy. They're science fiction. and there are plenty of examples of inconsistancy in that series to. If you're not going to keep things consistant, theres no point in drawing up any background.

Fans somehow manage to turn the inconsistencies into exceptions. Every mythology contains self-contradicting elements when examined. I thought those films did well enough that they're able to survive to this day. Whether there was a storyverse to begin with or not, fans and creators now see more life in these properties and continue to build on them. So storyverses for those franchises do exist, even if they were created in hindsight. In the case of Aliens and Predator, we saw those jointly manifest into very successful and riveting comic-book and game franchises, with movie spin-offs.

Btw- I was referring to sci-fi / fantasy; or "fantasy" as per the dictionary meaning ("Fiction with a large amount of imagination in it").

They're classics because they did story and action well. They had memorable characters, great one liners that became part of pop culture, and they are visually still great to look at. Something I cant say for MOST of the films coming out nowadays.

Was Duke really in the same mold though? Those movies also had heart and good drama. Being games, the Duke franchise was quite limited when it came to the narrative. But there were certain dramatic elements present that could and should be used in *any* adaptation, although they obviously need to be fleshed out a lot more than the games were able to do at the time. I believe that's what any storyverse / story-bible / backstory should aim to accomplish.

[Altered Reality]

No, It has nothing to do with having a coherent plot. Lol... It has to do with forgetting the origins of Duke, which is the 80s action movie.

Characters must evolve, to appeal to contemporary audiences (note: nostalgics are NOT part of the "contemporary audience", because they lack the "contemporary" part). The movies you mentioned were made to appeal to normal audiences who lived in the 80s, not to nostalgics of the 60s: if they were made today with the same script, they would be total failures. In the same way, the Duke movie must be made to appeal to normal audiences who live in the 00s, not to nostalgics of the 80s, or else it will be a total failure.
Why do you think Michael Bay's Transformers was such a financial success? Because it wasn't made for nostalgics. Had it been made for nostalgic GEEWUNs, everybody who isn't looking at the past through rose-colored glasses (the majority) would have hated it.

[Duke's New Chainsaw]

I don't think a lack of nostalgia has anything to do with how bad that movie was.

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

Characters must evolve, to appeal to contemporary audiences (note: nostalgics are NOT part of the "contemporary audience", because they lack the "contemporary" part). The movies you mentioned were made to appeal to normal audiences who lived in the 80s, not to nostalgics of the 60s: if they were made today with the same script, they would be total failures. In the same way, the Duke movie must be made to appeal to normal audiences who live in the 00s, not to nostalgics of the 80s, or else it will be a total failure.

No. It does not have anything to do with that... That isnt what made the 80s movies good. You're not talking sense, you're talking nonsense. The quality aspects of the 80s movies have nothing to do with the 80s. In fact they transcended to both ends of the timeline of the genre. They were a mergence of the best visual effects and some of the most competent writers and directors.

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

Why do you think Michael Bay's Transformers was such a financial success? Because it wasn't made for nostalgics. Had it been made for nostalgic GEEWUNs, everybody who isn't looking at the past through rose-colored glasses (the majority) would have hated it.

You know why we dont have cult classics anymore? Because Hollywood is riddled wall to wall with people who think like that AR. That opening weekened and financial success are more important then telling a good story. Sad thing is, opening weekend has basically become it for a lot of Hollywood movies. Movies used to last a month or two with good sales.

People will watch what is presented, and if they like it you'll know. They'll stay high in the box office. So why not just do it the right way instead of the greedy, shallow way? Films are supposed to be many art forms married into one. Not money making flat, hollow, recycled crap.

I can name the good films of the "00s" on both of my hands. Movies of the 90s and 80s, and all the classics of the 60s and 70s? Just any one of those decades has double the quality movies by comparison. Heres why, the film makers of then were "just trying to make a movie, folks." It wasnt perfection, but it had a soul.

The movies coming out today are so post-processed and the writing follows such a formula its not even funny. I've sat in on script writing classes and seen too many teachers telling the NEXT generation that there is only one right way to do things. No! What are some of the most successful movies of absolute recent memory? No Country for Old Men, The Dark Knight, and Wall-E. The first, changes things up in ways we havent seen a lot lately. Dark Knight is a revolution in realism when compared to many of the other super heroes films of the last two decades. Wall-E was just a good focus on writing (lovable characters really).

I want to know where the elitist punks are that decided theres only one or two right ways to go about making movies and punch them squarely in their small minded faces. I suppose the likes of Jules Verne and Shakespeare "did it wrong" too and would need to be "updated for the times" because a mainstream audience wouldnt get it? Well how about this one... What about that other audience that doesnt bother going anymore? It's mostly mid-old teenagers going now. I know that only 30% of Americans go the movies, thats millions of people, yes, but what about the other 30% that might go in their place if you just honored good storytelling. Theres a reason Wall-E and The Dark Knight spiked the numbers, and it wasnt because they were "up to the times" it was because they were good stories told first and special effects and so forth second.


Bottom line, writers of Duke Nukem, dont focus on updating this for the times. Focus on telling a good story with the action and hard ass attitude we have come to love from the Duke franchise. You'll make something that will endure for a long long while in peoples minds.

[Altered Reality]

You're not talking sense, you're talking nonsense

Clearly, this is because my opinion is different than yours.

I suppose the likes of Jules Verne and Shakespeare "did it wrong" too and would need to be "updated for the times" because a mainstream audience wouldnt get it?

No, Jules Verne and Shakespeare did it exactly right. What they did is write material that people of their own time (except nostalgics, who maybe at the time preferred Occitan lyric poetry to "contemporary" comedies and adventure novels) would enjoy, just like the authors of movies like Transformers, Iron Man, The Dark Knight write scripts of movies for people of their own time to enjoy. If people in the 80s liked shallow movies with one-dimensional characters, there is no reason to make the Duke Nukem movie like that. Would have you liked The Dark Knight, had the Joker been a buffoonish pseudovillain without real motivation and completely unable to scare anyone, and had Batman been a regular guy who runs around in a bat costume "just because"? Because I sure wouldn't have liked a movie like that. And for the same reason, I wouldn't like a Duke Nukem movie where nothing about Duke Nukem is explained, except that he is a buff guy who goes around killing aliens "just because".

Bottom line, writers of Duke Nukem, do whatever you feel is best for your movie. Making a watered-down movie that tries to please everyone (including unpleasable nostalgics) but pleases nobody is the worst thing you could do.

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

Clearly, this is because my opinion is different than yours.

No, its because you're speaking nonsense. Writing, editing, and directing are what I do for a living. I've sat in too many class rooms and listened to teachers tell students theres only one right way to do things.

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

No, Jules Verne and Shakespeare did it exactly right. What they did is write material that people of their own time would enjoy

Wrong. They wrote literature that changed perceptions, opened horizons and STILL to this day remains a force to be reckoned with. This "for the times" bullshit is of THIS generation only.

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

, just like the authors of movies like Transformers, Iron Man, The Dark Knight write scripts of movies for people of their own time to enjoy. For example: had The Dark Knight appealed to nostalgics and gone for the spirit of the Batman comedy series (because that's what it is) of the 60s, it would've bombed.

Writing a comedy comic has nothing to do with the times, its a style choice. You have no proof that a comedy throwback WOULD have bombed. With all the shit being thrown out there like Meet the Spartans and Disaster Movie you dont think theres an audience for that? Regardless of whether those movies did badly, they were made at such a low budget they only needed to make a few million to be considered a financial success.

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

And if people in the 80s liked shallow movies with one-dimensional characters, there is no reason to make the Duke Nukem movie like that.

Name some. This is a tired retort I hear from people who support the "Things need to be for the times." Like I said, Jules Verne, Shakespeare and many other writers and even directors of more recent memory have written films that trascend their times, because they focused on simply writing a good narrative and presenting it to the best of their abbility, not locking into a close minded. "Now" only lasts for now. Every action hero I think of in the 80s had history, and had motivation. What, do you want Duke Nukem to cry about his puppy that got hit by a car when he was a kid? Is that what we're arguing here? Duke is based on the action heroes of the 80s, thats what he should represent, not this modern dreary depression dog shit that they keep doing every five minutes. Time for something fresh, something we havent seen in awhile.


Stop calling me a nostalgic.

[Cybopath]

I wouldn't expect Duke to be exactly like an 80's Movie but to be a hyper version of it.

Looks at Raiders of the Lost Ark or Kill Bill those are prime examples of films that where created for a cult audience and also appealed to a mass audience because it seemed like something new.

Also why the talk of a massive blockbuster film? If we were to compare comic book adaptions to computer adaptions Duke Nukem would be one of those lesser know comics just above the radar like Blade or The Punisher, lower budgets did nothing but goodness for them.

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by Cybopath

I wouldn't expect Duke to be exactly like an 80's Movie but to be a hyper version of it.

Looks at Raiders of the Lost Ark or Kill Bill those are prime examples of films that where created for a cult audience and also appealed to a mass audience because it seemed like something new.

Also why the talk of a massive blockbuster film? If we were to compare comic book adaptions to computer adaptions Duke Nukem would be one of those lesser know comics just above the radar like Blade or The Punisher, lower budgets did nothing but goodness for them.

I agree with this assertion actually. Duke isnt likely to get a large budget. I would bet on a modest budget.

[Altered Reality]

No, its because you're speaking nonsense.

Clearly, it's because my op^C

Writing, editing, and directing are what I do for a living.

And what Jason Friedberg, Aaron Seltzer and Uwe Boll do for a living.

I've sat in too many class rooms and listened to teachers tell students theres only one right way to do things.

And that's fine, if it's your way, right?

They wrote literature that changed perceptions, opened horizons and STILL to this day remains a force to be reckoned with.

That's a nice side effect that could never be noticed at the time those authors were alive (and of course, it could not be planned either).

What, do you want Duke Nukem to
(cut)

have an interesting backstory, a reason to be there, a reason to be pissed and go berserk at the climatic end of the movie, and see a glimpse of his future life when the movie is over (i.e. the movie is not ALL that ever happens to him)

Name some.

Some 80s movies with one-dimensional characters? Let's see:
- Flash Gordon
- A Nightmare on Elm Street
- Predator
- Masters of the Universe
- Commando
- The Punisher

Enough? (I had thought of putting Alien in that list too, then I remembered it was made in 1979, so it doesn't belong in there just because it's a 70s movie with one-dimensional characters.)

"Now" only lasts for now.

Except when it does not.

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

Clearly, it's because my op^C

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

And that's fine, if it's your way, right?

If you would open up your head you would realise I was saying that it was wrong to do that to students of art.

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

That's a nice side effect that could never be noticed at the time those authors were alive.

It was, Jules Verne is considered by many the father of science fiction, and his ideas were almost UNHEARD OF before he wrote them. They were unpopular when they were first presented because there was no such thing as an "appeal" for them.

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

have an interesting backstory, a reason to be there, a reason to be pissed and go berserk at the climatic end of the movie, and see a glimpse of his future life when the movie is over (i.e. the movie is not ALL that ever happens to him)

None of the 80s action movies are self contained. Commando, Predator, Rambo they all speak of the history between some of the characters and they all end on a note of either reflection or looking to the future. Some of it is interpretive and some of it is openly stated.

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

Some 80s movies with one-dimensional characters? Let's see:
- Flash Gordon

- Predator

- Commando
- The Punisher

Not one of those movies has just 1D characters. Every hero in those films has motivation, and backstory.

Originally Posted by Altered Reality

Except when it does not.

Which is never. Now, in movie terms is only within the realm of its release. a few months at most.

[Cybopath]

Wo wo wo what's the big hoo ha?

Honestly 80's movies with one dimensional characters? how 'bout most Hollywood movies in general? From King Kong '33 to Hellboy II.

[Klaus Kinski]

*steps on soapbox*
You had to know it's inevitable, I have to fart my opinion in your general direction.
First of ll let me say that the term "storyverse" is total BS. We seem to live in a sciety that has some sort of compulsion to rename everything. In five years "shit" will be "post-digestion food". Maybe I'm just getting old and grumpy.
In the old days we simply used to say "universe" and the events and rules that served as fixpoints for this universe's boundaries (yes, irony) we're called "canon". We don't need these fancy new words to describe what has been named already. Storyverse=Universe.
That "universe" has nothing to do with changing the character, as some here might suggest, because it just describes the world our more or less beloved characters are set in. Canon is what defines the contents of that universe and breaking the rules of canon, changing the canonical history, is what can make an adaption shit.
Playing with that is risky but doesn't automatically lead to failure. Honestly, I was happy to see that Hugh Jackman didn't wear yellow spandex, even if that breaks with the canon of the well described X-Men universe. Change can be for the good. However, we all seen a Boll film and now that this can backfire big time.
So is he X-Men movie universe the same a the comic's universe? No, not really. But it's a good adaption of it, a parallel dimension. This is a good example of breaking with canon and getting away with it.
Would hat work with Star Trek? Could the Kirk of the new Star Trek film be gay or Spock be a Klingon? Certainly not. Why? Because you can't that easily get away with changes in the same medium. While it is certainly fine for greatly different mediums like books and movies or games and movies (take "Silent Hill" as example), it doesn't work too well in the same or similar mediums.
TV shows that are based on movie (or vice versa) can do that on a limited level but it almost never works in exactly the same medium. There is a difference between TV and the big screen that allows some room because we are willing to accept that. Look at Superman, "Smallville" is vastly diverse from the movies, a diverse take on the universe, an alternate dimension, but we accept that since our perception of the ploatform (tv vs. cinema) is another one. Our expectations aren't the same.
Once you try to change the universe inside one medium, you walk on thin ice, Schumacher showed that with his Batman films which were, once he reached "Batman & Robin", a totally changed take on the dark knight that Burton delivered. What he did was't accepted simply be cause it's not what people wanted, what was established. People don't mind rather small changes, look at Harry Potter and compare parts 2 and 3. Look at the Bond movies.
As long as the essence, the spirit of the characters and their universe they live in, stays the same, the complaints will be on a low level. Brosnan's Bond was maybe not the most popular one but he was accepted because he presented the spirit of the Connery movies. Lazenby flopped because he changed too much (Bond isn't the kind of guy you'd imagine to be monogamistic).
So why the hell, to stay with our example here, was Moore so successful? Well, there are franchises that are dominated by the mermory of their beginnings, by nostalgia if you want. Star Wars is a very good example. Indiana Jones is a good one too. These universes are so defined by their early outings, we want more of that but nothing than exactly that. We're so influenced by the expirience of consuming part one, we won't allow different viewpoints on the universe in the newer ones.
The main factor here is time. If the time between those parts is too long, we won't accept the alternate view (we're not talking about changing the universe or canon on a significant level here). Indiana Jones 4 critics are the best example.
If the movies (or books or games) arrive in a short enough interval, we're much more forgiving, allowing changes even to the canon. We simply don't have time to distill our memory into fond ones. We can't grow into canonical purists.
And this also explains the success of Moore. There was not that much time between the movies and the minds of he audience we're still open enough for a new lead, a new style. But tht isn't even the main factor, it' merely what makes it possible. The magic word is "time".
Time changed how movies were made between the 60's (Connery's era) and 70's (Moore's era). But it's not only the way movies were made changed, the whole society changed. The movies of the 70's were made in a vastly different climate than the ones in the 60's. Hollywood got more risky, having less social and taste restraints than ever before.
There was quite a lot of experimentation in the 60's, a testing of boundaries, that made the way for many things common in 70's cinema. While Connery's Bond was serious but not without irony, Moore was able to go even into realms of slapstick. Shows like the Avengers paved the way for that and the post Vietnam climate with the slow downfall of the Hippie movement allowed much more humor in unusal ways and franchises than ever before. The society was accepting to take certain things more lightly.
At the same time there as a trend for much more depressive and dark themes. While "Planet Of The Apes" is quite a monument here, 70's sci-fi is dominated by dystopian futures. "Silent Running" and "Soylent Green" are good examples. The raise in "nature strikes back" movies like the countless animal attacks on screen or disasters in general (confess, you enjoyed the "The Towering Inferno" as much as I did) is testament of that as well.
All in all, the main thing that sets the 70's and everything before apart from what came afterwards is that this is the last decade of idealism. No, I won't go into that again.
Idealism and naivity started to die out in the 70's (again, watch the sci-fi stuff) and became the age of cynicism. It is the age of the 80's action hero.
After all the shit the world has gone through, capitalism has gotten the better of us and we started to consume mindless things like Schwarzenegger movies and wrestling. Hollywood started to sell a good time instead of a good movie. That resulted in an inevitable lack of depth. I'm huge Friday the 13th fan, I know what I'm talking about.
That is when Duke comes into play, because in this decade his parents met. The hero of the 80's tainted in several ways, didn't care abou human lives as long as they were the bad guys and always had a cynical joke for the audience. "Commando", "Die Hard" and "City Cobra" are prime examples. The action movies of that time were dominated by sociopathic, insane cops (Riggs and Cobretti), failed Husbands (McClane and Kaminsky) and rather simple minded killing machines (Matrix and Rambo).
Although some were rather good and believable characters (especially the very human McClane comes to mind), their respect for death was very small. Just watch "Running Man" which was based on the ultra cynic novel by Stephen King, it's a perfect example of the 80's attitude toards killing and murder in action movies.
Dirty Harry's seed blossomed into beings like Norris' "Hitman" and Seagal's "Gino Felino" from "Out For Justice" (Seagal coming rather late in the game but using in his early movies without doubt the same formula). At the same time the comic book aspect of artificiality manifested itself from the need of bigger, more spectacular action sequences of Hollywoods commercialised cinema in form of the cardboard cutout, larger than life hero as often portrayed by Arnie and co.
Van Damme is another usual suspect, showing off his plasticine action figure body in unecessary splits and rather useless but good lookin fighting techniques. Never before was the look as important, being a marketing point. The 80's brought hordes of dumb muscle men saving the day with brute force and one liners.
The cradle of Duke Nukem.

[Klaus Kinski]

Oooops, too much text for one post!

Now, who is Duke exactly? Is he the sci-fi variant of Rambo? Certainly not. So far he was always presented as the lovechild of dedication to the awesome, simple fun formula of the 80's hero and self-aware irony, poking fun at something we love without being disrespectful.
Can that work today? Without changing the spirit? Yes. Without breaking with canon, changing the universe? Unlikely.
Let's talk first (WTF? First? How about "finally"?) about the spirit. That is definately possible. This is the core problem of any adaption, no matter from which medium you're coming and to which you're going to. This depends soley on the people actually making the movie. They must respect and love the game. They must be dedicated to bring the best Duke expirience and not the highest grossing blockbuster. Not that they shouldn't aim for the cashflow (we want a sequel, right?) but that can't be the prime motivation. Don't compromise, don't bend over for the studio. The suits are usually the last people that care about the source material. My prime evidence in this case would be the already mentioned "Silent Hill". The people behind that one cared, they loved. Uwe Boll doesn't.
That said, the universe, the canon, is a different story. While it defines the spirit of Duke, it is in an adaption far more flexible than the spirit when it comes to breaking a good formula or keeping what's holy. Imagine our solar system and its universe being the video game. When adapting it for the movie dimension, you might be able or even forced to shift the planets around, change their path through space, but as soon as you mess too much with the planets or the sun, the universe will be torn apart, drifting into endless space and collapsing into the sun by the forces of gravity. The relationship beteen these objects in your universe, the gravitational balance, that is your spirit. That is what keeps your adaption to be genuine. Mess too much with it and everything will come undone. Make unwise choices and the life bearing solar system becomes the black hole sucking up every substance. Yes, Herr Boll makes black holes.
However, that is the worst case scenario. Several successful adaptions have proven that playing with gravity can shift the masses of the viewers for your advantage, "Iron Man" or "The Dark Knight" being the latest masterpieces of sliding into parallel worlds. That can and must be done for a successful Duke movie as well. To what extent is IMO not possible to tell at this time.
I expect DNF to flesh out the universe a lot, adding a few more planets on our star maps. I expect 3DR to add more consciously to it than they've done in Duke 3D, to give us a clearer picture of Duke and his environment. Who knows what revelations the game has to offer about the world we think to know?
All that said, let's get back at times and how they changed. It's true, the 90's brought the action hero of the previous decade to its knees, killing him off to a large degree. Schwarzenegger retired from movies, Lundgren, Van Damme and Seagal make only direct to video crap, Norris got too old to do is own kicks and Stallone turned into a tired looking man who refuses to age. The 80's are over but that doesn't mean we can't celebrate them anymore, it's just more difficult than before.
We all should thank Tarantino. Why? Because he's on a personal crusade to re-animate the past, turning nostalgia into todays cult movie. Look at his movies, look at Jackie Brown (revitalising the cinema of the soul era), Death Proof (sadly failing to reignite the interest in 70's car chase cinema) or Kill Bill (Shaw Brother's anyone? How about spaghetti western?). He's not alone, there's his pal Rodriguez with his very 80's Carpenter-ish Planet Terror and classic 80's TV is returning as well.
Find the right tone and release at the right time and you'll have a hit if the mix is good, if your parallel dimension is fun to slide into. Nostalgia is in if done right. Many influential young film makers today (and coming up) grew up in the 80's and surely want to make their childhood dreams come true, feeding off early influences. You have to follow that example. This decade and maybe the early part of he next seem to bee a good time to dive back into a world where muscle packed sociopaths make fun of people they shot and you actually find yourself rooting for them, for your last action hero.
*steps off soapbox*
Damn, my butt hurts. I'm getting too old for this shit.

[Commando Nukem]

Yeah, Klaus I think you got it.

[fast-1]

Name one film of a video character that was good.

Which there is no book/comic/story. If there was a script who should write it and why do they always get it wrong. What direction should it take to make a good impact so it doesn't suck. Why with all the action hero films out what's good about the plot storyline.

If you watch Pitch Black, Batman, X-men, Rambo or any other film like them what would happen to keep them good.

I feel with all game to movies is they try to do too much at once with the story.

[Cybopath]

I think it's all down to who gets there hands on a franchise? Huge companies don't give a crap they know theirs a fan base who will turn upto see the title screen so pump out something as quickly as possible. Take "Doom" WTF was with that? What was one of the coolest most original things about the Game Doom? You fought legions of Hell in space, not aliens or genetic creatures but actual Demons, how simple was that?

Thing about Duke is perhaps it's a little more low key and may escape that.

[Commando Nukem]

Originally Posted by Cybopath

Thing about Duke is perhaps it's a little more low key and may escape that.

I think they might miss the point by taking Duke too seriously unfortunately. Theres nothing wrong with adding some meat to the character, but I cant honestly see Hollywood finding the balance between the comedy and the seriousness that Duke 3D and some of the 90s games had (Zero Hour, really.)

[Kalki]

A larger than life character in a serious movie is what we need. I think hollywood manages that part fine.

[Cybopath]

Look at something like Judge Dredd, JD was a satirical over the top comic book and the film tried to get too serious in a stupid way and that fell apart.

[prophecy holder]

Originally Posted by MrBlackCat

Why do you think that?

MrBlackCat

Here is a list of movies based on games that did good.

[Cybopath]

That's true every game turned movie so far has sucked balls. Resident Evil, House of the Dead, Doom etc But it's got nothing to do with the fact they were games, they could have as easily been a shitty movies based on comics or novels, it's because the creators didn't stay faithful to the source.

[Klaus Kinski]

I have to disagree. I think the Silent Hill movie was excellent, not only as movie itself but also as an adaption. Very different from the source material but different for the better. Unfortunately the next best thing would be Resident Evil which isn't really the best you could've made out of he games.
Also, the Tomb Raider movies were quite successful at the box office. I can't say if they're good adaptions though, I never liked Tomb Raider in the first place.

[Wamplet]

[Cybopath]

Silent Hill is probably the best film based on a game so far, but it's still not that great. What works for Silent Hill is the main character in the games is the town you could make a 100 stories about what happened there.

As for financially successful, I don't give a crap that's for producers to worry about. AvP was finacially successful but 80% of people waiting for an AvP hate it.