So is the movie on hold too?

That scene was pretty awesome though.

He retired, some time ago. Think he tried to kickstart a movie, and..it didn't go well. His farewell video was hilarious...he gave a finger to everyone, including his fans.
Seriously his best work.

 heh...a Uwe Boll joke and a John Cleese gif. Not bad, man. Not bad at all.

i think they've made an excellent movie, with an awesome cast, a super director, amazing CGI , but everything came to a halt in the end: they can't decide which ending to choose. O , O or O .

Not heard anything I think we can safely assume it's dead.

In my opinion the only way to make a movie adaptation would be to split the ME1 story into a trilogy and have the Battle of the Citadel be the (un-official) end of the Reaper plot like this:

Mass Effect (I) Plot: Beginning, Eden Prime, Citadel (Meeting Garrus, Tali, & Wrex, becoming First Human Spectre), Normandy flying off into the Distance to Faunts / Ending Song
Mass Effect Part II plot: Normandy speech, meeting crew, rescuing Liara, Noveria, Virmire
Mass Effect Part III plot: Feros, Defying the council, Ilos, Battle of the Citadel

Afterwards they could go off-book and do a whole series of original standalone movies featuring Shepard (acting as Spectre) and the original normandy cast on brand new adventures which could also re-introduce existing ME2 characters (e.g. Thane, Miranda, Illusive Man, etc.) and post-ME1 source material (e.g. Shadow Broker, Migrant Fleet, House Divided, Omega, From Ashes, Leviathan, etc.) reworked specifically for movie or tv format.

(Should they ever decide eventually to bring back the collectors/suicide mission, & reapers say right at the end of the run of any successful movie or tv series that would also be a remote/distant possibility like the Infinity War movies for the Avengers).

No, no, NO! You can't just make movie about Shepard, that would be taking away everything about them that makes them interesting! Just the fact that you would have to pick their gender seems wrong, unless you make it story of two Shepards, which would force drastic changes the story.

Making a movie (a medium that's completely linear) would be fundamentally misunderstanding what makes Shepard stand out from all the other "action heroes". Half the Shepard's appeal is making the character your own, having trilogy be your own story. You can't portray Shepard the right way, because no two Shepards are the same. You can't even really make a mention of Shepard as symbol because they can be either symbol of hope (Paragon) or ruhtless terminator who gets the job done no matter what (Renegade) and everything in between.

I'm not opposed to exposing movie audiences to the world of Mass Effect, but using Shepard (or Ryder for that matter) would be completely wrong way to do it. Give it original characters, either completely new story or story within part of history if you want something bigger, like Relay 314 Incident or...something else humanity played part in (because nobody will do human-less story unless it's animated)

Disagree with the bolded. Yes, there are no right answers...instead, all the answers are wrong. Whatever you choose, it will be wrong for everyone who chose differently. I don't want to see Shepard in different format, I'm familiar with them, I've been them for 3 games and countless hours. Character on big screen won't sound the same, won't look the same, probably won't even be the same gender as my Shepard and most likely won't be the same character in general. Why call them Shepard then? Why restrict yourself to retelling a story that has been told in different form, when the setting of said story is interesting enough to sustain other stories? You can do so much more with it I think.
And while the adaptation would be aimed at movie audiences instead of me, I want to be able to enjoy it too, which I wouldn't be able to if it was about (not)Shepard.

Creating a different story avoids these, while still keeping the setting and movie creators would be free to create something new and interesting without being restricted to framework of previous work in different medium. And it would be much more likely to succeed if it wasn't labeled as video-game movie (though that would be hard to do with "Mass Effect" in the name...or maybe I'm overestimating how known ME is)

And what right do I or you have to say "That's wrong"? We've been given tools to craft our own story within certain bounds, to go back and take that away would be mean. Sure, they could say it's not canon but...there would still be sneaking suspicion that that's how those character were supposed to be according to them and that doesn't sit well with me.

IComic book movies aren't made for comic book readers yet comic book readers can still appreciate new takes on time-honored classics even if they take great liberties with the source material... how are we any different? Mass Effect's lasting appeal lies in it's established characters, iconography, themes, locations and it's central conflict without them it's Mass Effect in name only isn't it? Good or bad or painfully mediocre, for better or worse, I want the Mass Effect movie to be based on Mass Effect not... random peripheral shite: a mass effect story.

He called himself "the only genius in the whole fucking [movie] business" (Got this from wikipedia).
He also challenges his critics to boxing matches to beat the shit out of them.


This trigger discipline is just terrible. (This was from his *ahem* "Classic", "The House of the Dead", based on the video game.)

Original movies and prequels would be absolutely fine EVENTUALLY but skipping over ME1 would be akin to bypassing Mass Effect's New Hope and making up a Rogue One INSTEAD first - absolute madness. Yes Mass Effect fans know the story, setting and characters but what about the rest (60-70+) of the audience?

Before you can get to the original movies and prequels the setting needs to be grounded in the original source material and properly introduced to the audience and given time for the writers and directors to familiarise themselves with the property otherwise going 'off-book' or 'off-piste' with the source material with unknown writers and directors right off the bat would be like driving in the dark. No matter what you do there's no guarantee of success or quality but I'd absolutely rather have a shit Mass Effect (I) remake than a shit original story that has nothing to do with it and then that's that with no chance of any further original movies or tv shows.

ME1's focused narrative structure split across three 90+ minute movies would be a perfect launching pad for an extended universe. ME2 & ME3 would not work as movies but remove the reapers and collectors from the equation and there's plenty of excellent material post-ME1 (Shadow Broker (Thane replacing Feron), Genophage (Wrex/Mordin), Migrant Fleet, House Divided, Quarian/Geth war, Leviathans, From Ashes, etc.) which could be reworked into standalone movies with the Normandy crew.

Miranda and Jacob could even have their own Cerberus spin-off and eventually you could have cross over movies with the Normandy crew hunting down the Illusive Man/Cerberus. Garrus could have an Arkangel spin-off on Omega where he leaves the Normandy after ME1 to take on Aria and the smuggling gangs tying up C-Sec loose ends... in order to realise any of this potential you'd absolutely have to cover ME1 first. The Normandy crew are by far the most valuable part of the IP and to not utilise them front and center at the core of any movie or tv series would be a crime against cinema.

I take comfort in the idea that this shite will never happen.

 They could just decide to make the cinematic and game universes separate, that way it doesn't interfere with peoples head canon.