Recommended Reading

[Pidesco]

The Finn is right.

[Fearless_Jedi]

I recommend Fair Play by James M. Olson. Not only is it easy to read but it really encourages the reader to put themselves in the shoes of a CIA agent and look at things from their standpoint. As a matter of fact I'd be disappointed if no one at Obsidian read this while developing AP. Not only does it give you alot of good, realistic scenarios to put into the game, but it could be invaluable in developing all the different decisions you could make for any given scenario.

 

Other than that, I highly recommend the movie Taken. I enjoyed it more than the Bourne and Bond movies.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Fearless_Jedi

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Holy crap, "Taken" has the most sublime CQC I've ever seen in a movie. Flashy enough to be exciting, yet not so ridiculous that it takes you out of the moment in the story. Also, the camera remained stable enough that you could actually appreciate what he was doing (rare these days).

 

I also thought Liam did a great job with his acting, which is par for the course.

[Pidesco]

Flashy enough to be exciting, yet not so ridiculous that it takes you out of the moment in the story.

 

 

I'd say that taking the viewer out of Taken's idiotic plot would be a good thing.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Flashy enough to be exciting, yet not so ridiculous that it takes you out of the moment in the story.

 

 

I'd say that taking the viewer out of Taken's idiotic plot would be a good thing.

 

Idiotic? You mean to say that the premise is implausible, or that one guy could do anything about it is implausible?

[Pop]

It's all pretty implausible.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Really? Rich American tourists don't get kidnapped?

 

As for one guy going through a small army, I thought that was kind of the premise upon which action movies are typically based. The Bourne movies were pretty well-received . . .

[Pidesco]

Flashy enough to be exciting, yet not so ridiculous that it takes you out of the moment in the story.

 

 

I'd say that taking the viewer out of Taken's idiotic plot would be a good thing.

 

Idiotic? You mean to say that the premise is implausible, or that one guy could do anything about it is implausible?

 

I wasn't really thinking of implausibility, although it is implausible. I was actually thinking about how hamfisted the script is and about the stupid notion that Neeson's quest magically redeems him as a father.

[mkreku]

As for one guy going through a small army, I thought that was kind of the premise upon which action movies are typically based. The Bourne movies were pretty well-received . . .

Hmm, I liked the Bourne movies just because they felt so.. I don't know, but (almost) every encounter Bourne has is brutal, lethal and visceral. There are no push-overs. The enemies aren't just there to die in a gory mess, they put up a fight that matches the skill-level of Bourne. An action movie like Rambo where he kills 200+ people is taking on a small army. Bourne was more taking on an elite squad of assassins. It's like they showed the enemies a lot more respect in Bourne than in most other action movies.

[Pidesco]

AS far as the action is concerned, the difference between the Bourne movies and Taken is that Bourne is shown as a badass by how he gets through things beaten up and sometimes seriously injured, while in Taken, the main character just plows through everyone without breaking a sweat. This, not only takes away the thrill of the fights, but also makes an already too old character more unbelievable and hard to empathize with.

 

Furthermore, the poor script really doesn't compensate in the empathy department. He was a government sanctioned serial killer, who ignored his daughter all his life, but it's ok because it allowed him to magically save her life when she got kidnapped, just like his overbearing paranoia predicted. It's not bad parenting if everyone is evil and out to get your daughter.

[Pop]

Really? Rich American tourists don't get kidnapped?

They don't get kidnapped in the first hour of being in Paris after being specifically warned about this sort of thing from their fathers who just happen to have spy equipment laying around their house.

 

Also it's fairly inconvenient that on his first day of security work, a major security breach occurs and the person he's assigned to protect gets attacked by a stalker.

 

Dude is cosmically unlucky.

[Fearless_Jedi]

AS far as the action is concerned, the difference between the Bourne movies and Taken is that Bourne is shown as a badass by how he gets through things beaten up and sometimes seriously injured, while in Taken, the main character just plows through everyone without breaking a sweat. This, not only takes away the thrill of the fights, but also makes an already too old character more unbelievable and hard to empathize with.

 

I find your analysis to lack many things especially...heart. I mean the whole idea is that this guy will do anything to save his daughter. Given the situation, plowing through enemies is not only plausible but rather expected. I mean its his daughter after all.

 

By the way, Liam's character did fight one guy in the end who was almost an equal match in skill. How many hand to hand fights did Bourne get into in the first movie where he fought someone of similar skill? Only one! And what happened to the rest of the people Bourne fought...they got owned, even the Treadstone assassin at the farm got owned.

 

Sure maybe it seemed too easy but once you realize that Liam's character is a highly skilled agent whose daughter's life is on the line then you have to understand that Liam's character has alot more riding on this then your normal bad ass would. This legitimizes the whole badass killer on a rampage scenario.

 

Furthermore, the poor script really doesn't compensate in the empathy department. He was a government sanctioned serial killer, who ignored his daughter all his life, but it's ok because it allowed him to magically save her life when she got kidnapped, just like his overbearing paranoia predicted. It's not bad parenting if everyone is evil and out to get your daughter.

 

The first half hour of the movie was made so that you would empathize with Liam's character and all that he is trying to do to be a father to the daughter he neglected. You see how he has to struggle to remain important in her life when his ex-wife's family gives her everything. No where among this does it say that it is ok to be a government agent and to neglect your kid...quite the opposite. All it shows the viewer is that because of his background he has the ability to come through for his daughter in a way his ex-wife's family can't. And indeed he does come through for her, earning him a little redemption as we see in the end.

 

 

Pidesco, I don't think you really appreciate the finer points of the story. Rather you made your decision early on that the story doesn't matter in the framework of the movie. Because of that I think you really lost out on what really set this thriller above the Bourne and Bond movies. I mean this movie took a fair amount of time in the beginning to help viewers really empathize with the main character. Can we say so much of the Bourne and Bond movies? I would say no. James Bond was James Bond with all the cliches that accompany him. Jason Bourne was a guy with amnesia who was good at fighting and running. Eventually you got to see alot more of Bourne's character but it was almost too choppy to follow. In Taken you where given a chance to connect with the main character before he started kicking ass. If you think about it, that is actually rather rare.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Fearless_Jedi

[odium]

From my point of view all movies should be allowed a highly improbable, bordering ironic premise. Just look at it as choosing the more interesting premises as a start for your movie from the million scenarios that happen everyday in the world.

 

The threat depicted in the movie is real and no it doesn't matter that she was rich as someone said, they just needed more meat.

 

Him taking on an army is also quite reasonable, he is a highly trained government serial killer while the members of those organizations typically are not. Not only they have no combat expertise whatsoever but the requirements of joining are usually as simple as being just another compatriot. They are not dangerous because they know kung fu, they are dangerous because they have no problem with killing.

 

The only thing i would have grips with are his motives for going on a killing spree just because he can, and thankfully this movie actually gives a plausible reason. It doesn't matter who agrees with it, fact is there is nothing we would not do for our children if it was in our power, especially for a poor sob like him that lost her before he even "had" her so to speak.

 

 

That being said i didn't much like the movie, it just didn't click for me. I liked the new take on some old lines though, some funny stuff.

 

I guess watching Oldboy spoiled me for this type of movies.... whish i'd never seen it. :D

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but "The Shooter" with Max Payne- err Mark Wahlberg is probably as close to an Alpha Protocol movie as is likely to happen.

 

All said and done, I'd probably go so far as to say I liked TS more than any of the Bourne films individually. Your mileage may vary, of course, but if nothing else it's worth seeing to form your own opinion on.

 

I'm still a bit dumbstruck that so many people hate Antoine Fuqua's films, but if nothing else you should be able to get a popcorn flick out of this one.

[Bos_hybrid]

I always get a chuckle when someone claims a movie/tv show/game is unrealistic, because you know its FICTION.

[Zoma]

Those people ought to use the term "Believeable" instead.

[Hell Kitty]

Being fiction doesn't mean a movie/tv show/book/game/whatever can't be realistic.

 

Those people ought to use the term "Believeable" instead.

 

Not really. My pet hate is the whole "tapping a few keys on the keyboard turns a grainy low-res image into a super sharp high-res image" thing. There is really no way to make that believable.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Hell Kitty

[Pidesco]

That's what you say now. The idiot Hollywood writers of today are the visionaries of tomorrow.

[Hell Kitty]

That's what you say now. The idiot Hollywood writers of today are the visionaries of tomorrow.

 

Huh? What idiot Hollywood writers of yesterday are today considered visionaries? If history is anything to go by what we have today will be seen as lame or viewed through rose coloured glasses.

[Pidesco]

The ones who insert the "tapping a few keys on the keyboard turns a grainy low-res image into a super sharp high-res image" thing, into their plots, of course.

[Cl_Flushentityhero]

I'm currently reading Barry Eisler's "Fault Line," and so far it's pretty interesting. One of the protagonists is a complete badass, and the "action" sequence I'm currently reading reminds me of the multiple approaches AP promises to have to each situation.

[Matthew Rorie]

The ones who insert the "tapping a few keys on the keyboard turns a grainy low-res image into a super sharp high-res image" thing, into their plots, of course.

 

[GeneralLee]

The ones who insert the "tapping a few keys on the keyboard turns a grainy low-res image into a super sharp high-res image" thing, into their plots, of course.

 

 

[facepalm]

Inconceivable!

[/facepalm]

[Pidesco]

Now that was just awesome.

[Pop]

The ones who insert the "tapping a few keys on the keyboard turns a grainy low-res image into a super sharp high-res image" thing, into their plots, of course.

 

I see your CSI and raise you an Untraceable (about halfway down the page, can't find the unimbedded clip)