Why are you all just suggesting one movie? They're planning on making a franchise, so what they should do is make one movie starring one planeswalker (probably Jace) with some cameos from other planeswalkers (Liliana, Tezz, Chandra...). In that movie, you set up some major subplot (say, the Eldrazi or a new Phyrexian invasion). Next movie, new planeswalker unrelated to Jace (I dunno, Ajani?), again with a couple of cameos and a few small mentions to the bigger plot. Next movie, one of the planeswalkers we've already seen (Chandra or something). After a couple of movies: big subplot payoff as the combined might of multiple planeswalkers take down the Phyrexians on New Plane Shizzle.

@ Yxoque - I assume that this is the plan. They want this to be a tentpole franchise, and will probably crib the Marvel movie model, like you're describing.

I hope they steal the Marvel model, because that model works. If they go with an ensemble cast from the beginning, it won't end well.

Magic: High Hopes, Low Expectations

Someone make sure they engrave this on my tombstone.

My feelings


ANYWAY, this is most likely going to go horribly. We all know jace is going to be the main character, which is a little meh (unless they make a new character ).) But I want to stay positive. best case scenario, its entertaining.

I know I'm the only person who would ever say this, but I want the Homelands comic to be a movie, I know it will never happen, but that small comic has a better story than any story arch since the neowalkers.

Hm, Homelands doesn't really have what you'd call a typical story structure though... As much as I love it, it's more The Silmarillion than The Hobbit if that makes sense. I don't know how well it would translate.

...I say this, but it's only a matter of time before Peter Jacka[koff] Jackson puts his grubby paws on the Silmarillion too. >_<

Honestly, I kinda want to see this made into a sitcom. Nicol Bolas is a dark overlandlord who rents out a 5-bedroom flat to a pyromancer, a mind-mage, a beastmaster, a necromancer, and a cat. Hilarity ensues.

In all srsness, I doubt that we'll see any of the existing storylines because:
1: They involve backstory.
2: They were written as novels. Novels as media favor longer, deeper stories than films.

Hunger Games, Twilight, Hobbit, Harry Potter, etc. etc. Hollywood loves adapting novels.

Pause. Think.

You can list plenty of films that were based on novels, but they're still the vast minority, a small fraction of the total films made. Is it possible to do novel adaptations? Yes. Is it the way that most films are done? No. And besides, everyone who actually read the Hobbit whined about the movie.

Here's the thing - the percentage of the potential audience (or at least what they are going to assume is the potential audience) which will have read any of the novels is so slim, that you can take any of those as a starting point and use whatever bits or pieces you may want to, because the vast majority of the viewers would be coming to the film with a blank slate.

Regardless of whether or not the movie is based (however loosely) on any of the existing books, you're likely to get new books or tie-ins based on the movie. Which could include re-releases of any materials which the story is derived from, in the same way that you'll find new editions of books in bookstores with the tagline "now a major motion picture!"

Not meaning to sound contrary, but rather to highlight your point:

See also: The reason Hollywood makes so many novel and other adaptations.

As ever, William Goldman's cardinal rule for understanding Hollywood applies: "Nobody knows anything."

I can't think of the last movie I saw that wasn't based off a novel or some sort of written material like a short story or comic book.

But it is a trend that is becoming more common. And your original statement implied that they don't turn novels into movies. Not that novel movies were a small portion of movies total. And while they may be a "vast minority" of actual films, it has proven to be a very profitable sub section, as with all adaptations it has a built in fandom. Heck it's the exact mindset that is bringing us a MtG movie to begin with.

It's possible to turn novels into movies, but cuts usually need to be made to make them fit into 2-hour boxes. Sometimes this can be worthwhile because the brand-name recognition can draw in moviegoers, but the number of people who have read the magic novels is pretty small. Add to that the problem of explaining all the canon and backstory involved in the novels, and it quickly becomes lots of work for little payoff.

This is already an adaptation, though. Unless they're planning on inventing EVERYTHING whole cloth, they're still going to have to explain, say, Ravnica, Innistrad and Theros, to pick three arbitrary examples. They need to establish that aspect of the canon and backstory. Characters don't need that much explanation... Agents manages to explain everything you need to know about the Mending in a scene that absolutely in the shortlist for Most Blockbuster-Worthy Scenes In Magic Ever... and players will expect to see established planes. That's just a given. They'd be absolute morons to NOT use established settings.

And once you have all that stuff out of the way, why not adapt something established? Like... I just don't see what advantage they have from NOT adapting Agents, in particular, since it's basically the perfect introduction to this era of Magic and sets up a whole number of other conflicts that can be expanded in their adaptation of Test of Me--

Oh.

Oh hell.

I may not be the biggest fan of Mr. MindSculptor-Emo-Pants but I cannot deny that it's the most perfect start point for a movie that represents Magic as it is now.

I just hope that they do, and not make an overall original Magic movie or Dick Fayden's Floppy Adventures.

Dack's Theros adventure has been actually really really good. The entire Spellthief/Vengeance arc was just crap, but what they're doing right now is damn good. The art, colors, and writing have all improved.