Mortal Kombat *SPOILERS*

[Havok83]

Sub-Zero and Scorpion can definitely carry a movie. Remember, Sub-Zero actually had his own game in 97. An adaption of that game can easily be a movie. Scorpion is in it so that kills two birds with one stone.

That game was considered one of the worst MK title, so I wouldnt use that as evidence to support your point

[Immortal Weapon]

That game was considered one of the worst MK title, so I wouldnt use that as evidence to support your point

The game is **** but the plot behind it is a solid one. If the movies ever want to use Shinnok and Quan-Chi it's a solid introductory story for them.

[Agent Z]

Um...no. The last two seasons of GoT were a disaster, but I don't know what world you're living in where Seasons 2, 3, and 4 were "shittier and shittier." Season 5 was seen as a misstep and 6 still got strong reviews.
None of which, by the by, has anything to do with plot structure, which is what I was referring to.

I love how you think cramming everyone into a movie will somehow allow more time for development than an ongoing TV series. You keep referring to the MCU, but the MK cast is not the Marvel universe.




With Kitana, you can explore her history as Shao Kahn's assassin, her relationship with Mileena and Jade, how she discovered the truth about her past and what led to her deciding to turn against Kahn (I'm referring to the original timeline of course, not the MK9 reboot which royally screwed her up in every way).

I assume that's what people mean when they say characters should get their own individual movies? To build up to a main Mortal Kombat movie which would be about the actual tournament or Outworld invasion? Because when you say Liu Kang carried a movie, you mean the actual Mortal Kombat featuring all the other characters, yes? That wouldn't necessarily be a "solo movie."

Liu was the main protagonist in the first two MK movies and was the main lead in most of the fighting games. The other characters had their own arcs going for them but they weren't the main lead (Johnny says as much in his Armageddon bio). An ensemble show or movie doesn't mean there isn't a main hero.

[Wildling]

The first Resident Evil movie is dog ****.

Yeah even not looking at it as an adaptation it lacks teeth as a zombie movie, and Licker being revealed as the boss BOW was anti-climactic. Don't get me started on Nemesis. Ending of movie 1 was dope but I skipped middle installments in theaters because of them.

[Guy_McNichts]

(Sorry I went rude there, but frankly "I love how you" fucking arguments just always piss me off as condescending as hell, so I respond in kind - I believe you knew what I meant, and pretended otherwise, which is just not a good faith debate).

Well, when you open your reply with a smart-ass comment that deliberately misses the point I was making, I tend to assume we're not acting in good faith.

I love how you think I said "cramming everyone into a movie" when I went out of my way to say twice that some characters would only show up in some movies in smaller roles. It was obvious that I meant some characters will show up in character A's movie, others will show up in character B's, etc. But I guess you can't make an argument unless you twist it around.

See, I don't understand how or why that would be better or allow better character development than a TV show. What you're describing is simply an ensemble, which is what the Mortal Kombat movies we've gotten have more-or-less tried to be, and I don't understand how that's supposed to relate to the Marvel movies.

Liu was the main protagonist in the first two MK movies and was the main lead in most of the fighting games. The other characters had their own arcs going for them but they weren't the main lead (Johnny says as much in his Armageddon bio).

I said Liu Kang wouldn't really work in a solo movie just about him, which is what people in this thread are discussing.
You said he could because he was the main protagonist of the previous movies.
I said that's not the same because those movies wouldn't be considered "solo movies."

An ensemble show or movie doesn't mean there isn't a main hero.

Good, so we're in agreement.

[tyusmax]

This movie was...ok.

I actually like the original movie in '95 better. Though Annihilation was just crap.

Think they tried way too hard to make Scorpion a good guy.
And shoehorning in this Cole Young character, who was just flat and meh.
I suck at fighting (established by beginning of movie), so my special power is to get beat up on, yeah!

Sub-Zero was the best part of the movie.

And the old Shang Tsung was just greatness! His presence and vibe as evil bad guy, and his evil overlord dialogue helped setup the MK world tremendously.
This Shang Tsung doesn't hold a candle to the old one.

Also, they didn't seem to have an actual tournament?
Seems like the tournament is going to be next movie, but MK tournament with no Sub-Zero is just stupid.

[Vakanai]

Well, when you open your reply with a smart-ass comment that deliberately misses the point I was making, I tend to assume we're not acting in good faith.

My comment about Games of Thrones getting shittier? That wasn't a smart ass comment, that was legitimately my view/opinion going by widespread hearsay afterwards. If you took offense to that, then that probably has more to do with your feelings towards that show than my intent. I was acting in good faith there, so I don't know what else to say. Frankly, I or you can say whatever the fudge we want or think about films/tv/streaming shows and should be considered acting in good faith if it's reflecting real opinions. Twisting people's words and intent however is not good faith. If you do not agree that there's a difference between those two things, then we have no shared ground to even argue on.

See, I don't understand how or why that would be better or allow better character development than a TV show. What you're describing is simply an ensemble, which is what the Mortal Kombat movies we've gotten have more-or-less tried to be, and I don't understand how that's supposed to relate to the Marvel movies.

Not really. It wouldn't be an ensemble - some characters are too small to be more than support/minor antagonists who only show up to get fatality'ed. Any one movie would only focus on 1 to 3 main leads. To put it better, some characters are like Scarecrow in the Dark Knight trilogy, and some are the bus driver Joker kills in The Dark Knight.

[Killerbee911]

Y'all are misremembering about Game of Thrones. Game of thrones was fine until last TWO episodes, The quality of the show went down slightly when they stop working from material strictly from the book but show was never consider bad other than those last two episodes( I guess that means the final season it went down in quality). The first three episodes of the last season was them fighting the Night King and everybody was happy then. The last TWO episodes spoiled 7 seasons of pretty good show so much was riding on show ending

This talking about season 6

Game of Thrones received the most nominations for the 68th Primetime Emmy Awards, with 23 nominations, and won twelve, including that for Outstanding Drama Series for the second year in a row. U.S. viewership rose compared to the previous season, and by approximately 13% over its course, from 7.9 million to 8.9 million by the finale.

Now back to Mortal Kombat, I would favor movies over TV show because the story isn't good enough to have stretch it out AND being action focus it would be ridiculously hard to balance drama with straight up action focus( see Falcon and Winter Soldier for example). I think I like higher production values of a movie for Mortal Kombat I mean 6 episode per season premium streaming show could work too. It is a toss up

[Agent Z]

Well, when you open your reply with a smart-ass comment that deliberately misses the point I was making, I tend to assume we're not acting in good faith.



See, I don't understand how or why that would be better or allow better character development than a TV show. What you're describing is simply an ensemble, which is what the Mortal Kombat movies we've gotten have more-or-less tried to be, and I don't understand how that's supposed to relate to the Marvel movies.



I said Liu Kang wouldn't really work in a solo movie just about him, which is what people in this thread are discussing.
You said he could because he was the main protagonist of the previous movies.
I said that's not the same because those movies wouldn't be considered "solo movies."

Good, so we're in agreement.

If a Kitana movie would be considered a solo while having Jade and Mileena, the a movie starring Liu Kang can also be a solo despite having other characters. As it stands, this just pedantry over what qualifies as a solo.

[Common Writer]

It goes to show you that the only fighting game franchise that deserves a movie adaptation is Soul Calibur. Because Soul Calibur is the only fighting game franchise that isn't tournament-based. It's a sword and sandals epic, filled with a colorful cast of characters, and a flashy visual aesthetic that could dominate a summer movie box office.

[The Cool Thatguy]

All this discussion about a TV show, so I thought I'd ask

Is Mortal Kombat Legacy worthwhile? It's on HBO Max.

Fighting any good?

Acting any good?

[Immortal Weapon]

This movie was...ok.

I actually like the original movie in '95 better. Though Annihilation was just crap.

Think they tried way too hard to make Scorpion a good guy.
And shoehorning in this Cole Young character, who was just flat and meh.
I suck at fighting (established by beginning of movie), so my special power is to get beat up on, yeah!

Sub-Zero was the best part of the movie.

And the old Shang Tsung was just greatness! His presence and vibe as evil bad guy, and his evil overlord dialogue helped setup the MK world tremendously.
This Shang Tsung doesn't hold a candle to the old one.

Also, they didn't seem to have an actual tournament?
Seems like the tournament is going to be next movie, but MK tournament with no Sub-Zero is just stupid.

The sequel will likely introduce Kuai Liang. We will not have an MK without Sub-Zero

[Common Writer]

All this discussion about a TV show, so I thought I'd ask

Is Mortal Kombat Legacy worthwhile? It's on HBO Max.

Fighting any good?

Acting any good?

Well...it's better than Mortal Kombat Conquest.

[Immortal Weapon]

All this discussion about a TV show, so I thought I'd ask

Is Mortal Kombat Legacy worthwhile? It's on HBO Max.

Fighting any good?

Acting any good?

Select episodes of Legacy is good. The Johnny Cage episode is really good.

[hareluyafan1]

If a Kitana movie would be considered a solo while having Jade and Mileena, the a movie starring Liu Kang can also be a solo despite having other characters. As it stands, this just pedantry over what qualifies as a solo.

I have to respectfully disagree with you there. If it has just one or two other characters in supporting roles (like the example of Jade and Mileena) then it's still a Kitana solo. After all the movie needs somebody to be the main antagonist (in that case Mileena).

If it has an entire roster's worth of characters, then it is no longer a solo movie. By this reasoning, Mortal Kombat 95 is not a Liu Kang solo movie. He's the main protagonist but it doesn't focus only on him.

Let me put it this way. Would you consider Spiderman: Homecoming to not be a Spiderman solo film because Iron Man appears in it?

It goes to show you that the only fighting game franchise that deserves a movie adaptation is Soul Calibur. Because Soul Calibur is the only fighting game franchise that isn't tournament-based. It's a sword and sandals epic, filled with a colorful cast of characters, and a flashy visual aesthetic that could dominate a summer movie box office.

Nothing wrong with a tournament setting. Bloodsport, The Quest and Enter the Dragon were set in tournaments and they were perfectly fine.